from the don't-be-a-victim dept

Amy Alkon is an advice columnist and blogger who is just one of many people who has had a horrifying and traumatizing experience going through airport security lately. After being pulled aside for an "enhanced" search, she found the process to be so invasive and so in violation of her own rights that she was left sobbing. She wrote about the experience on her blog, noting that she didn't think the search was just "invasive" in the emotional sense, but flat out physically invasive:

Nearing the end of this violation, I sobbed even louder as the woman, FOUR TIMES, stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants. Between my labia. She really got up there. Four times. Back right and left, and front right and left. In my vagina. Between my labia. I was shocked -- utterly unprepared for how she got the side of her hand up there. It was government-sanctioned sexual assault.

Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return. This woman, and all of those who support this system deserve no less than this sort of unpleasant experience, and from all of us.

After investigating whether or not she could file sexual assault charges, and being told that this was probably a non-starter, she instead wrote about the experience, and named the TSA agent who she dealt with: Thedala Magee. Alkon felt that if people can't stop these kinds of searches, they should at least be able to name the TSA agents who are doing them.

Magee responded by lawyering up and threatening Alkon with defamation and asking for $500,000 and the removal of the blog post.

Alkon, with the help of lawyer Marc Randazza, has now responded, refusing to back down. Both letters are embedded below, but here are a few key quotes:

Your client aggressively pushed her fingers into my client’s vulva. I am certain that she did not expect to find a bomb there. She did this to humiliate my client, to punish her for exercising her rights, and to send a message to others who might do the same. It was absolutely a sexual assault, perpetrated in order to exercise power over the victim. We agree with Ms. Alkon’s characterization of this crime as “rape,” and so would any reasonable juror.

Furthermore, even if your client did not actually sexually assault my client, Ms. Alkon’s statements to and about Ms. Magee would still be protected by the First Amendment. The word “rape” itself has been the subject of defamation cases by far more sympathetic Plaintiffs than your client. In Gold v. Harrison, 962 P.2d 353 (Haw. 1998), cert denied, 526 U.S. 1018 (1999), the Hawai’i Supreme Court held that a defendant’s characterization of his neighbors’ seeking an easement in his backyard as “raping [the defendant]” was not defamatory. This speech was protected as rhetorical hyperbole. Of course, we need not seek out Hawai’i case law in order to debunk your unsupportable claims. Rhetorical hyperbole has a strong history of favorable treatment in defamation actions. See Greenbelt Cooperative Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14 (1970). This doctrine acknowledges our First Amendment right to express ourselves, even when employing literary license. Accordingly, even if your client’s actions were not “rape,” Ms. Alkon had every right to characterize them as such.

No free woman should endure what your client did to Ms. Alkon. Fortunately, Ms. Alkon is capable of recognizing injustice, and for the good of us all, she had the courage to speak out on this matter of public concern of the highest order. After Magee’s assault on Ms. Alkon’s vagina and dignity, Ms. Alkon exercised her First Amendment right to recount this incident to others in person and through her blog. This was not only her right -- it was her responsibility.

I honestly don't know if this reaches the "technical" definition of rape, but I am massively troubled, if not horrified, by the idea that a woman who feels sexually assaulted based on what happened above ends up being threatened for saying she felt violated. Talk about adding insult to injury.

Anybody see the bottom...

of this rabbit hole of security theater?

I do think it was at least 'wrong', if not illegal, to name the security agent publicly. File charges and name them that way, but publicly by screaming "You raped me!" and then following up with talking about it online using names just strikes me as a bit more than Ms. Alkon likely should have done.

I'm not in any way defending the TSA and if what Ms. Alkon described happened, she should be suing the TSA worker for assault at the very least.

There should be video of this encounter which would show some exertion of the TSA worker actively working her hand up into Ms. Alkon. Far more exertion than simply going up and touching her vagina which I believe is the TSA's stated policy; i.e. to make sure there is nothing in the underwear, not to make sure there is nothing in the vagina - though sadly I'm sure we'll get there before too long

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Speaking of public:
If Ms. Magee does get $500,000 out of this, wont the local DA have no choice but to press charges for prostitution?
If not, would the TSA be setting a new precedent for prostitution by legal force (which I shall dub profitable litigious sex, or PLS for short)?

Its kind of an awkward position the TSA may be setting up for all those deadbeat johns out there.

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Why do I get the feeling that you're a spoiled jerk who has lived in a bubble and who affords himself the luxury of laughing at other people's misery?
You don't know what you'd do under every condition; But if someone penetrated you with their fingers.... then, an only then, could you respond so condescendingly flippant without sounding like complete putz.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Good gawd, you're right.
My apologies.
I think i was conflating it with another comment that was with all earnestness criticizing Alkon's reaction.
I seem to be having an Emily Latella moment.
".....never mind!"

Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

By video of her encounter, do you mean a camera pointing upwards at her vagina mere centimeters away? I don't think a generic CCTV camera jutting from the wall would be able to show the detail necessary for someone to say she DID stick her fingers in there.
And you're wrong. Think about it. Does a rape victim just stand there silently and think "I'll complain about it later". No, they'll scream and shout, because of the trauma of the incident. Unless she's a Vulcan from Star Trek, then what you expect of this woman is completely nonsensical.

Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

'Think about it. Does a rape victim just stand there silently and think "I'll complain about it later". No, they'll scream and shout, because of the trauma of the incident'

I am troubled by that statement. Rape victims are not required to scream and shout to be considered legitimate. Whether they scream or not, it's still rape. There are plenty of reasons why a victim might choose not to resist rape beyond denying consent, not least of all being fear of making the situation worse.

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"Think about it. Does a rape victim just stand there silently and think "I'll complain about it later". No, they'll scream and shout, because of the trauma of the incident."

You are highly delusional with that frame of logic I have to say. This isn't a woman getting raped in an alley, this was under "legal" search. A first reaction might not be to scream but to try horribly to process what is happening and justify it in some way.

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

You are absolutely correct, that is exactly why EVERY woman that has ever been raped has gone straight to the police. Every rapist is behind bars then eh? Yelling and screaming would have done nothing, most likely the victim would have been arrested!! It's only the terrorists that dont like to be violated, right?

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

I've never been sexually assaulted, so I can't say that how this woman reacted to her experience was wrong.

If the TSA agent really did sexually assault her (which seems true just based on the fact that TSA procedure pretty much is sexual assault), the woman shouldn't be shamed or sued into silence. The last thing our society needs is legally institutionalized sexual assault on top of a culture of silence and shame for victims.

I don't have a problem with publicly shaming the TSA agents. They work for an agency with unethical policies and their continued employment means that the unethical nature of the agency extends to them. If paying your mortgage is more important than your ethics, you get what you pay for.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"I do think it was at least 'wrong', if not illegal, to name the security agent publicly. File charges and name them that way, but publicly by screaming "You raped me!" and then following up with talking about it online using names just strikes me as a bit more than Ms. Alkon likely should have done."

So when a woman is sexually violated and is emotionally traumatized she should just move along quietly? Her outburst at the time of the incident is understandable.

If she files charges, that information is public knowledge as well.

I do agree that an accusation of rape should require charges to be filed. I'm not sure who would advise a woman who endured what she claims that assault charges are a non-starter. If you are going to accuse someone publicly of a crime, then you must follow through with an attempt to have that person prosecuted. Failure to do so would open yourself up, in my eyes, to defamation.

If she publicly named the woman on a blog without pressing charges, then the TSA agent should be able to take legal action. If someone accuses me of rape, and puts that accusation on the Internet with my name, to be found for who knows how long by anyone Google searching my name, it could have very serious effects on my employment, and many other things.

If I am found not-guilty of the accused crime, I should also have recourse against the woman for a defamatory blog post. I think the woman took a foolish step making the accusation on a blog post before the incident was prosecuted as a crime. She should have immediately called the police and filed sexual assault charges. I personally would not see what happened as rape, but as always, I'm not a lawyer. However, based on her description, I think sexual assault would be appropriate.

I'm not a fan of the TSA policy at all. But we cannot allow one crime to justify another.

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Sure you can claim someone raped you without filing charges and having them prosecuted, however if you do not, then the person you made the accusation against can take action against you for defamation.

Suppose someone accused you of rape. Suppose they posted this accusation on a blog, with information connecting you specifically to the accusation. That post gets indexed by Google. Any employer in the future that does a web search on you may see this and choose not to hire you based on this information. Do you think you have to just accept it? Do you not have any recourse to recover damages an unproven accusation can cause to you?

People cannot make serious accusations against others without being held responsible for said accusations if they are not proven to be true. Legally, she could be charged with both slander and libel.

The appropriate place to accuse someone of a crime is in court. Once the crime is tried and a conviction is granted, then she could post a blog declaring she was raped and it would be supported by the court as a factual statement of record.

Publishing and/or verbally communicating to others that a specific person raped you without going to court is a crime itself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Don't you american's have a document pertaining to the fact that its OK to say anything any way you like it? Oh ya, the constitution... the proper place for her to say she was raped is ANYWHERE SHE DAMN WELL PLEASES. This is an important point that I think you are missing. If someone doesn't want their name associated with 'rape' online, then they should think about that before they stick their hands down a strangers pants, regardless of what their job tells them to do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

You go out with a girl on a date. You are a perfect gentleman. As the date ends, you don't even touch or kiss her goodnight.

The next day she has called your boss, and told them you raped her. She posts on all the social networks that you raped her. You have mutual friends and they are all told that you raped the woman.

You lose your job. You lose your friends. You find it difficult to get another job because there are publicly available accounts that you raped her online for anyone to read.

You don't want your name associated with this but she has the right to make accusations without pressing charges. Everyone will believe her because she said it happened and her account is all that matters.

This is your reality. It is not, however, how things work in the United States.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

That's a bit of a different situation than what we have here because the facts don't appear to be contested. The agent apparently did not contest that she touched that woman's genitals. What the agent is contesting is that it was "rape". As it turns out when it comes to defamation, that is irrelevant because defamation is concerned with false facts, not legally inaccurate language.

When the RIAA says that people are guilty of "content theft", that is not true because it is instead copyright infringement. When unions or politicians say that immigrants are "stealing" jobs, that is not true in the legal sense. However, none of these people are guilty of defamation.

If it turns out that the victim was lying all along and that the TSA agent gave her an appropriate pat-down which did not involve repeated touching of the vagina in a particularly distasteful way, then the TSA agent would have a case. But if all the TSA agent is complaining about is that "rape" is not the technical and legal definition of what she did, then she has no defamation case.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Really? So if someone accuses you of rape and you say, "No I didn't" and take legal action to put an end to the false (in your eyes) accusation it should just be summarily ignored based entirely on the account of the accuser?

Forget your day in court. What she said happened exactly as she said it. It doesn't matter that she didn't have any evidence other than her testimony.

That's a bit of a different situation than what we have here because the facts don't appear to be contested

So a non-sworn statement of a person accusing someone of rape, who, after being raped, merely took down the name of her attacker without ever filing a police report is considered fact? Seriously?

Not contested? Seeking a lawyer on grounds of defamation seems like a pretty good example of contesting.

But hey. The TSA agent is a TSA agent. She MUST be guilty. Let's summarily take her rights away because this other woman isn't a TSA agent and therefore her word is FACT.

Our country is is where it is because people like you believe the rights of others can be suspended and superseded for the rights of someone else.

But remember, when that day comes and you are accused of a crime falsely, it doesn't matter. You did it because you were accused.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"Really? So if someone accuses you of rape and you say, "No I didn't" and take legal action to put an end to the false (in your eyes) accusation it should just be summarily ignored based entirely on the account of the accuser?"

That's not what I said. What I said is that your accuser has to prove that you were committing defamation (which includes showing that you were lying) in order for you to be guilty of defamation in just the same way as the prosecution has to prove you guilty of rape in order for you to be guilty of rape. A defamation case failing does not in and of itself mean the facts stated by the defenders were true. It just means defamation was not proved.

"So a non-sworn statement of a person accusing someone of rape, who, after being raped, merely took down the name of her attacker without ever filing a police report is considered fact? Seriously?"

Actually yes. It might be an alleged fact only, it might be a false fact. But it is still a fact because that's what we call the subject of factual statements.

"Not contested? Seeking a lawyer on grounds of defamation seems like a pretty good example of contesting."

From reading the letter, it does not appear that she is contesting the facts. It appears she is contesting the woman describing the facts as "rape". That is not contesting the facts. That is contesting the opinion.

"But hey. The TSA agent is a TSA agent. She MUST be guilty. Let's summarily take her rights away because this other woman isn't a TSA agent and therefore her word is FACT."

You know, as much as that is not what I was saying here, that would not bother me too much. The TSA does have official procedures that involve violating people's constitutional rights and overall being pretty awful. So given the fact that the courts are ok with the TSA violating our fundamental rights, I don't see much of a problem with justice coming from outside of the judicial system in the form of TSA agents being universally reviled.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"This woman did not lie as far as we know, and no one is saying she is."

By claiming she is being defamed, that is pretty much saying the agent is calling the woman a liar. She hasn't answered to anything more specific because, get this...she hasn't been charged with a crime.

If she hasn't even been charged with rape, calling her a rapist is defamatory. The accusation affects her job. It affects her safety.

Do you really believe that stripping the TSA agent's rights based on unverified, unquestioned accusations of someone won't one day come back to haunt you? Isn't your stance of stripping the rights of the agent no better than what the TSA is doing to us with the illegal searches in the first place?

Do you not see that your view only further erodes your own rights? Or are you so blinded by the accusation and your own dislike of the TSA that you are willing to help them along by throwing away more citizen's rights?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Isn't your stance of stripping the rights of the agent no better than what the TSA is doing to us with the illegal searches in the first place?

I would agree if the TSA was on equal legal footing as the rest of us. As it is they are not and have been granted authority from the state to do what they do, and all the immunity that comes with it. To level the legal playing field they should have a higher burden of proof for things like defamation like public figures do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

First of all, no question of sexual contact. Video of the sexual contact exists.

Second, it was done under duress - with the or else of missing the flight, possible fine, arrest, and being placed on the no fly list, or worse.

Finally, there is no obligation by a TSA officer to commit and illegal act, even under orders.

P.S. I'd argue that no defamation exists here. The TSA already has a reputation for sexual assault, theft, and other misdeeds such that no loss of reputation could possibly occur, and indeed that TSA actively seeks such a reputation to intimidate fliers into compliance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"You are a perfect gentleman. As the date ends, you don't even touch or kiss her goodnight."

And these sentences pretty much make your comparison an invalid parallel. The TSA agent was not "a perfect gentleman" and did touch her. And it certainly wasn't a kiss goodnight.

As a rape crisis counselor, false accusations turn my stomach, because they trivialize the experiences of many of the survivors I've dealt with and it can certainly ruin the life of the accused. However, having a alleged sexual assault sanctioned by the government doesn't make it any less disgusting, the TSA agent any less culpable, or the general practices of the TSA any more constitutional.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

People cannot make serious accusations against others without being held responsible for said accusations if they are not proven to be true. Legally, she could be charged with both slander and libel.

True, but fairly meaningless. I could file suit against anybody I want for libel and slander. That doesn't mean I'll win. I think this TSA agent would have a very hard time proving these statements are defamatory.

Besides that, it is up to the DA to press rape charges, not the victim. And you can imagine how enthusiastic a DA will be about charging a federal employee with sexual assault for something she did (supposedly) as part of her job duties.

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

I agree that one crime does not justify the other. My question is, what do you do when the police/TSA/hired government thug refuses to take a report and/or do anything at all.

The people that told her its a non-starter are the ones that are supposed to enforce the law/investigate, they didnt want to investigate a fellow "peace keeper" / public servant so they said, sorry no go... so yes she had to stand on mount internet and shout this person raped me.

Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

If you call a police officer to report a crime, the officer is obligated to take the report. The officer is not a judge and does not have the authority to dismiss any claim that a crime has been committed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

My understanding though is that the TSA agent was acting within her authority no matter how despicable those actions would be. So the victim might open herself to accusations of filing frivolous charges. IANAL so I would love to hear from someone who might know if my theory has any merit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Where does this understanding that TSA agents can do whatever they want no matter how dispicable those actions are come from? Is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

I do not believe they are allowed to do whatever they want. I believe that they are trained and there are certain methods they are supposed to use. Despite what others say, I don't believe that all TSA agents are pervs and pedophiles either.

I think those who go beyond the methods outlined should be held accountable for their actions. This is done by filing charges and taking them to court.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"Where does this understanding that TSA agents can do whatever they want no matter how dispicable those actions are come from? Is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?"

Well, that's not what I said. What I said is that most likely in this case, that agent will not be sanctioned in any way and that if the victim's description is accurate, the TSA agent's actions were despicable. The reaction of the TSA to previous scandals is what leads me to believe that the TSA agent will not suffer any consequences.

"Despite what others say, I don't believe that all TSA agents are pervs and pedophiles either."

Of course they are not pervs and pedophiles. They are just following orders and going on power trips. Not pervs and pedophiles but still bad people.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

The reason why she would of been told there was no case legally is most likely due to the doctrine of Qualified immunity that would of been used by the Govt (and this Federal TSA employee).

Basically as I think Texas found out, the TSA is allowed under its statute to do all this and cannot be prosecuted due to this immunity.

Doesn't matter if the Sexual Assault case has merit, an individual has a mighty battle to prove that that immunity has been negated by nonfeasance or other tortuous actions.

So with this Woman, who IMHO has been absolutely assaulted and had an imminent fear, as can be seen by her outburst or as the TSA employee's lawyer states 'created a scene', and has every recourse that natural justice can give her.

We are talking about a Public Employee here, who has no expectation of privacy whatsoever whilst performing their duties as said public employee, and since the alleged incident and statement of "rape" was stated, as both sides agree on, in a public forum (the airport concourse), then her right and ability to publish it online, shout it from the rooftops, and generally make the public aware is absolute.

Interestingly, for the TSA agent to now personally demand reparations for an alleged defamation suit, that TSA agent is most likely removing her immunity since she is now doing it in a private capacity. If the case goes to court and a court finds that the allegation is truthful and in the public interest, charges could be laid for sexual assault or at the least nonfeasance.

I have a suspicion that Mr Randazza would love to take this all the way to a court, and even though this is an individual person not acting on behalf of the TSA, that the TSA would very much NOT want this to go to court ever.

obligation of police officer.

Real world:
The courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations. So sure, the police are supposed to take the report... Maybe they do, or maybe not.

I am aware of at least one situation where a woman called to report a crime, and was arrested and strip searched by the police for her trouble.

Re: obligation of police officer.

Right. So the police would not have responded to a rape call. They would also not have taken the report. The DA would also have rejected it. SO, Ms. Alkon therefore has the right to slander the TSA agent. lol

Your psychic abilities combined with your conspiracy theories that the entire government is filled with evil people who want to oppress their fellow citizens have determined this.

I know one thing that is fact. If you do not call the police, they will not come to take your report. That is what happened here. Nothing more. No conspiracy between the TSA and the local police and prosecutor. Ms. Aklon simply did not bother to file charges. Although she claims she was raped, she was too busy with her travel plans to call the police.

Hey, I dunno, do most women who are raped at an airport just go on with their plans, attend a conference and later on call a lawyer instead of the police? Why bother calling the police anyway. There is a chance it will be proven your accusation is false. Why risk that when you can just declare the rape happened with no need to prove it? Much easier.

Re: Re: obligation of police officer.

Taro it is obvious you have very little knowledge of what actually happens to women are are sexually assaulted and when and how often they call the police. You also obviously have not been following what happens when a passenger does ask the police for help at a TSA checkpoiny. Let me give you a hint the police very rarely take the TSA officer off to jail, but often do so to the passenger or force the passenger to be assaulted or be arrested. Go do some reasearch and then come back and chat.

Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.

"Taro it is obvious you have very little knowledge of what actually happens to women are are sexually assaulted and when and how often they call the police."

So if a woman does not call the police but instead chooses to call you a rapist, she doesn't need to file rape charges and you must accept being called a rapist? That's what happened here. Do you support this?

Let me give you a hint the police very rarely take the TSA officer off to jail

Why? Is it because of some great conspiracy between all local law enforcement and the TSA? Or maybe it's because there was no evidence of a crime?

Go do some reasearch and then come back and chat.

Do you find dismissing anyone who disagrees with you makes you feel like your points are more informed? Let's see.

These are just three examples I found. I have no doubt there are more. You see. When you are raped or assaulted, you call the police. You press charges. Anyone who tell you that cannot be done is just full of crap.

You choose to defend a woman who has publicly slandered a TSA agent without attempting to file charges. She could have. Absolutely she could have and to say otherwise is to be uninformed.

No you would rather stand beside her unsubstantiated claims because other TSA people are bad. And um, searches yeah these searches are all across the board sexual assault but we cannot charge the TSA with assault see...no don't read those examples of TSA agents being brought up on charges!! That couldn't happen!! No, we must just believe this woman and permit her actions because we are mindless zombies who don't think for ourselves and just make snarky, ignorant comments and then feel good about ourselves for standing up for this victim.

Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.

Here's what it comes down to IMO. 1) Until found liable for defamation by a court, the woman's speech is presumptively protected under the first amendment and 2) there is simply no law requiring anyone to make a police report before publicly accusing anyone of a crime, or providing any additional protection against defamation claims for doing so. You have been challenged to produce such a statute and have not, because it doesn't exist. If it did exist, it would be unconstitutional (due to the prior restraint principle, if I understand correctly).

Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.

NONE of those cases involved actions or activity while performing duties for the federal government, "Agents" of the federal government are protected by Qualified immunity which while not eliminating criminal charges sets a VERY VERY VERY often unattainable bar for proving or even getting charges heard, This is why only Gross Malfeasance that is back by irrefutable physical evidence against any police officer or agent ever result in any disciplinary action or even rarer criminal charges.

To think in a Pure She Side, She Said situation against the politically toxic TSA that any prosecutor would touch this case with a 10 foot pole with out more evidence of true malfeasance on the part of the agent is naive at best. It simply would not occur..

Short of a Video AND audio of the TSA Agent physically assaulting the victim while screaming "ohh baby ohh baby" nothing criminal would occur, as it would be viewed as a "Administrative Search" and be brushed aside

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.

Gotta love how everyone wants to make excuses for the accuser. For all we know, she DIDN'T go to the DA. She is a professional blogger, columnist and author. If she was refused by the DA that would be something she would certainly NOT leave out of her story. But she makes no mention of the attempt. The chances that this woman was refused by the DA and didn't include this info is as close to zero as you can get.

The accuser stands to profit from this in many ways: increased publicity, increased site traffic, opportunity to generate book sales, etc. etc. She has not shown any evidence (beyond her unverified public accusation) that she was raped. She benefits from this, the person she falsely accused is injured.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obligation of police officer.

She went to a lawyer. A lawyer is an officer of the court. Seems like a good place to seek advice. She got the advice you could expect: Don't waste time trying to sue city hall.

BTW, lawyers charge $ 350 an hour and up to handle matters. Just how much of her money is she supposed to invest here.

One final matter: What's more important here? Actual, admitted, videotaped molestation, under color of law, or "slander" of an employee following unlawful orders? After all, the employee could have said, "Give me anyother job. I refuse to molest other women." instead of saying, "I was just following orders."

Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

No, no it didn't. She contacted a lawyer. The lawyer did not want to take her case. She did not contact police. One lawyer's opinion is all she asked for. I'm sorry, but if I was raped, I would go to the police, name my assailant, provide evidence and have them arrested and prosecuted.

She asked one lawyer his opinion. When that didn't work, she decided to slander the agent.

Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"After investigating whether or not she could file sexual assault charges, and being told that this was probably a non-starter, she instead wrote about the experience, and named the TSA agent who she dealt with: Thedala Magee. Alkon felt that if people can't stop these kinds of searches, they should at least be able to name the TSA agents who are doing them."

She tried to press charges first. I think she is entirely justified in going public.

Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

She called a lawyer who didn't want to take her case. This is not trying to press charges. Pressing charges is filling out a police report. Name your assailant in the police report. This will go before the prosecutor's office. If the prosecutor determines there is not enough evidence to prosecute, then seek out another lawyer.

If the prosecutor, and every lawyer you contact refuses, then you might consider that your accusation has no merit, if not one single person, seeing what you presented, feels it is actionable.

If this occurs, you are not suddenly given the legal right to claim you were raped anyway and name that person publicly. They were not found guilty, and the truth is, nobody you went to believed you had enough evidence to prove rape in the first place.

When you declare someone committed a crime that they did not commit (legally, not just in your mind), that my friend, in California, where this happened...is defamation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

I would like to know what you want her to do to "prove" that this woman forcefully penetrated her? Unless a video camera was 3 inches from her crotch there is no way to prove that.

Rape is also an action. You state that rape is a crime--and in most places and in most cases it is. But not all places in this world is rape a crime--there are places where a husband can legally rape his wife. Should they not be able to use the world rape when describing what happened to them because it is not a crime.

The TSA agent is not disputing what happened. She is disputing how Ms. Alkon characterized the assault. So what if we call what happened to this blogger "forced entry into her vaginal cavity by a foreign object (the TSA agents hand)" Oh wait that is the definition of rape.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

If the prosecutor determines there is not enough evidence to prosecute, then seek out another lawyer.

Or the prosecutor could decide not to prosecute for any reason they choose. This article notes that US prosecutors have "absolute and unreviewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges".http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html
If they choose not to prosecute you cannot just "seek out another lawyer" since only the prosecutor can file criminal charges.

Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...

She tried to press charges first. I think she is entirely justified in going public.

Failure to legally prosecute a crime is NOT justification for slander. Don't let your emotions and desire to believe the accusation convince you to ignore the rights of another.

If a woman publishes in a column that you raped her and people read that, they are going to think of you exactly the way you are thinking of the TSA agent. They are going to believe the woman. It will affect your life in a very negative way.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

I say name every last one of these perverts on a power trip! I wish I had only gotten the name of my sexual assaulter at RIC. Unforunately I was too traumatized to think at the time. This C*** needs to burn in the fiery depths of hell for what she puts innocent Americans through.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"I do think it was at least 'wrong', if not illegal, to name the security agent publicly. File charges and name them that way, but publicly by screaming "You raped me!" and then following up with talking about it online using names just strikes me as a bit more than Ms. Alkon likely should have done."

I disagree. If the courts are going to stand by and allow federal agents to sexually assault people, there is no reason the rest of us have to remain silent. If this story is true the likes of Thedala Magee should be publicly named, shamed and we should all use all the legal tools at our disposal to make her feel unwelcome wherever she goes. There is no reason boycotts should only be applied against companies that misbehave. With today's technology it would not be that difficult to hook-up a webcam to a facial recognition database and refuse to interact with anyone who is known to have acted in ways that are grossly improper though legal.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"I do think it was at least 'wrong', if not illegal, to name the security agent publicly."

Come off it. Next you'll be suggesting that police officers have a right to privacy and we can't name them either.

The agent took a job interacting with the public, and the public has no reasonable alternative choice. She deserves to be named when she does her job well, and when she does it poorly. If she doesn't like the lack of anonymity, she should get another job.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

"I do think it was at least 'wrong', if not illegal, to name the security agent publicly"

The response is in the attorney's letter:

"If [TSA agent] elects to be a TSA agent, earning a living by violating American's constitutional rights daily, nobody is under any obligation to show her respect. In fact we believe that it is every American's patriotic duty to treat TSA agents with the utmost disrespect. The agency's reign is no more ligitimate that a foreign occupation, and even treating TSA agents with common courtesy enables theuir agents to continue."

In the good old times "Utmost disrespect" meant tar, feathers, and good rope; in this politically correct digital age, publishing their names and addresses when opportunity presents itself, looks adequate.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Seriously? Call it what it is, you ARE defending these criminals. When one commits a felony, one gives up their rights. This rapist TSA agent deserves to have her name plasterd across every billboard in the country. In the good 'ole days, she would have been hanged right along with the rest of the criminals in Washington DC.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Seriously? Call it what it is, you ARE defending these criminals. When one commits a felony, one gives up their rights. This rapist TSA agent deserves to have her name plasterd across every billboard in the country. In the good 'ole days, she would have been hanged right along with the rest of the criminals in Washington DC.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

The problem is, TSA refuses to state what their organization-wide policy is; what that airport's policy of the day is; or what that particular screener's policy is. It's all "SSI", a kind of Sensitive But Unclassified.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

You don't consider "touching her vagina" against her will sexual assault? Or is it okay because it's the TSA's "stated policy"? What if their stated policy was to strip passengers and do body cavity searches? Would it then be ok then?

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Seriously, you're going to blame a victim for their reaction? You're just as bad as the TSA agent, the TSA in general for sactioning rape (don't kid yourself, thats whats going on), and any lawyer that would defend it. I have no respect for people like you.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Naming the agent is necessary - in order to have the exact details exposed. Basically there are two possibilities here:

A) The search was way too intrusive, not only to the victim but also according to the TSA guidelines.

B) The agent followed the TSA guidelines to the letter, thus were not personally at fault. But the guidelines obviously yields too intrusive searches and need to be both exposed and adjusted.

Under absolutely no circumstances should genitalia be touched or searched. If there is suspicion of something carried within a person (could easily be in the stomach too, and it cannot be grope searched in any way), an x-ray or similar must be performed. There's no need to fondle genitalia unless part of a sexual act which should not happen at a TSA checkpoint.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

The victim here did the right thing. Did you not read the article? There was going to be no legal fight against the agent. She was told it was a non-starter. See, this is government-sponsored sexual assault/rape so there is no way she can go through legal channels anyway.

I have not, as yet, been pulled aside to go through either the pervert scanner or sexual assault feelup. I wont get along very well with either and, this is just me, I am not one to simply go along with an assault. I haven't yet decided on my physical response (and it WILL be physical) to being felt up...I either drop the fat f*ck grabbing my stuff right there or the instant he stands up I do a VERY aggressive feelup on him myself. Goose-gander and all that. I will NOT quietly submit.

I applaud this woman's response and hope she doubles down and keeps pushing.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Why does the TSA Agent deserve anonymity?

My understanding of the article is that she was/is a TSA security agent working at an airport not an undercover agent of the CIA, FBI, DEA etc... that would be put in grave danger by her identity being known.

Now if the victim had published her address phone number etc... in some misguided call for revenge I would agree but there is no protections afforded for rank and file law enforcement, their names are on their uniforms for a reason. We as citizens have a right to know who they are.

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Re: Anybody see the bottom...

Are you serious? People in a position of power that use that power to abuse, punish, steal from, or injure innocent people should expect no privacy to commit their crimes against the people who are given no choice but to submit to them. If we lose our rights to free speech we will no longer be able to fight back against these abuses and that's exactly why the legislators continue to suggest laws to strip us of exactly that. To protect themselves from reasonable consequences of their actions. If she doesn't want her name in a blog accusing her of rape, she needs to stop sexually assaulting travelers and hiding behind her badge.

Stop me if I'm going too fast for you.......

She named the officer because she had NO OTHER RECOURSE. Got it? Do you really think a federal officer will be prosecuted on the basis of a civilian complaint? What shoebox have you been living in since 1916? No government employee may be indicted for actions he or she THOUGHT were legal at the time.

No federal district court will entertain a civil suit against a federal law enforcement employee without evidence on the level of a bullet wound. Her ONLY course of action was to publicize her utter humiliation, in hopes that public opinion might force action at the congressional level.

Re: Re: Technical definition

TSA is immune to state law. They may be sued or prosecuted ONLY through the federal courts, where the standards of evidence are impossibly high, even IF you could find a federal prosecuter with a. Jurisdiction b. Infinite Spare time and c. A Death Wish where his career is concerned. The ONLY recourse is to threaten your congressman with replacement.

(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by—

(1) using force against that other person;

(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;

(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;

(4) rendering another person unconscious; or

(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

"(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by- (3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping"

This sounds EXACTLY like the TSA. "You must submit to sexual touching or terrorists might kill people, or we might put you in jail". Sounds like its dead on this statute.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

The TSA agent did not say that she would kill, beat or kidnap the woman if she did not submit to her search. She did not hold her down and grope her against her will. I think her accusation warrants sexual assault charges, but the Federal definition of rape would not fit. Perhaps California has broader definitions, and if so, the action should be compared to California law. No other state laws would apply however, if the crime was committed in California.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:

(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate,
arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a
reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used
in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a
governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position,
to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not
actually have to be a public official.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Was there a threat of arrest, incarceration or deportation if she didn't consent to the search? From my understanding, anyone who refuses the search at worst is simply denied access to their flight. If the TSA agent said, "you cannot walk away and go home, either you let me pat you down or I will arrest you", then I would certainly agree with you.

However, I didn't see any claims that she had to consent or she would be locked up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

> Was there a threat of arrest, incarceration
> or deportation if she didn't consent to the
> search? From my understanding, anyone who
> refuses the search at worst is simply denied
> access to their flight.

You understand wrong. There have been several cases of people who have gotten to the front of the screening line, then decided they don't want to go through the scanner or be felt up, and have attempted to turn around and leave the airport, only to be detained by the police and told that once a person starts the security screening process, they cannot revoke consent and walk away or they will be arrested.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

The ACLU has a trove of information on this topic, including personal accounts and documentation. They do detail the experiences of people who tried to leave the airport rather than be scanned or sexually assaulted, but were detained and forcibly searched anyway.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

"The TSA agent did not say that she would kill, beat or kidnap the woman if she did not submit to her search."

They didn't need to threaten her or hold her down because they were already in a position to commit the act. Which would seem to put the act under 'using force' anyway. Did she consent to being penetrated? No. Was she warned that she was going to be penetrated? No. Was a threat necessary for them to commit the act? No. How is it not rape even under federal law?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

"Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by- (3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping"

This did not happen.

"They didn't need to threaten her or hold her down"

I doubt she could convince a jury that she felt her life was in danger, she was going to suffer bodily harm, or would be arrested if she did not consent to the search.

That being said, if she believes she was raped, then she should file rape charges and let the courts decide. Personally, I see no reason why she should not file rape charges if she feels she was raped.

But she made accusations of rape without filing any charges. Unless her accusation is proven, then it is legally considered false. In the United States, the TSA Agent is legally considered innocent of the charges until she is proven guilty. So therefore it is very likely that the blog accusations are currently defamatory.

Whether or not we feel she was or wasn't raped or assaulted is absolutely irrelevant when considering the defamation charges.

The bottom line is the TSA Agent has not been proven guilty, so the accusation is defamatory until such time.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Is finger penetration considered rape under federal and California law? Yes, explicitly stated in both.

Was a threat required for them to commit the act? No, but if it was implied then California has that covered.

Was warning given? No, ergo no consent or even chance to object.

Was force used? As much as was needed, in that the act was committed without warning.

Is there any difference between being unconscious (explicitly listed as a qualifier) and being violated without warning? Yes, in that being conscious she was able to fully experience 'not' being raped.

As for the defamation stuff, did you even read the article? Her lawyer explains it pretty explicitly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

What her lawyer states is not a ruling. :) Has the TSA Agent been charged and convicted of rape? Yes or no? Did the woman verbally state and post a written statement available publicly on the Internet declaring that this specific woman raped her? Yes or no?

"An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation."

The woman didn't contact the police. From her blog:

"Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return."

WHAT? She took her name down to see if she could file sexual assault charges? If she was RAPED, why was she not on the phone with police on the spot? Who did she finally contact? A lawyer.

"I was waiting for a reply from a lawyer about the possibility of filing sexual assault charges. It turns out that filing charges is probably a no-go."

One lawyer said he didn't think sexual assault charges would stick. Why did she never contact the police? If a crime is committed, you don't "take down the name" of your rapist and call a lawyer later.

She handled this the wrong way. No charges were filed. All we have is her story written on a blog, naming a woman who has not had the opportunity to refute the accusation.

Was the woman violated? I believe she was? Rape or sexual assault? I do not have the legal knowledge to make that declaration. Were her civil liberties violated? Yes, since I believe the searches are illegal in the first place.

Has she defamed the TSA agent. In my eyes, yes. Again, I am not a legal expert, but it appears to be a pretty strong case.

Just because you feel you are wronged, does NOT give you the right to go out and wrong that person. You have the right, no, the RESPONSIBILITY to bring them to court and face your accusation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Have you read the precedent her lawyer cited? Apparently, some minor property rights violation can be called rape in public discourse with no consequences. Someone touching your genitals without your consent is definitely closer to actually being rape than minor property rights violations.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

"Yes I read the lawyer's take. However that is not a conviction."

That's entirely besides the point. The lawyer was pointing out precedent where someone had called something rape even though it was not legally rape. The point being made is not that the agent raped someone as it is defined by the law. The whole point is that you can indeed use the word rape outside of the context of a rape as the law defines it. Conviction is not necessary.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Read section 46:Slander. Charging someone falsely of a crime, in this instance rape, is slander. Since it has not been proven that the agent has committed rape, this accusation is legally false. Therefore the agent has grounds for a defamation case against the woman.

I think the settlement letter sent asking for $500k is excessive however. I hope Mike keeps us posted on the development of this story. I think it should go to court personally.

"Read section 46:Slander. Charging someone falsely of a crime, in this instance rape, is slander."

OK. That means for a slander conviction to be obtained one has to prove slander which means proving the crime to be false. It is therefore up to the accuser to show that the woman lied. The woman who said she was raped is not guilty until proven innocent despite what you are trying to say.

"Since it has not been proven that the agent has committed rape, this accusation is legally false."

Actually no. Since the crime has not been proven what that means is the agent is not in jail and is not guilty of rape. It does not mean she has not committed rape. Given that no court has ruled on whether rape has occured or not, the facts of this case are legally in limbo being neither proved true nor false.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

"Based on those conditions, it does not sound like rape is the appropriate charge to me."

Why not? Kansas law (which happened to be the first one I came across while searching), specifically identifies finger penetration as sexual intercourse and requires a warrant to be issued for the act to be considered exempt as a lawful body cavity search. In Kansas, at least, this seems to be quite plainly rape. I will try and find the specific law if I can find the specific state the incident took place in.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

In order to obtain a conviction for a California sexual battery, the prosecution must prove each of the following three facts:

(1) That you touched the intimate part of another,

(2) That the touching was

(a) Against the will of the other person, or
(b) That consent was fraudulently obtained, and

(3) That you touched the other person to specifically cause sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse.

I would think the TSA agent would argue the touching was not against her will, as she consented to the search and it was not fraudulently obtained since the search was TSA policy.

Again, I do not condone the searches. Not only do I consider them against the 4th Amendment, but I also believe that there are TSA agents who abuse this illegal authority even further. However the woman's responsibility here was to contact police and file charges. She cannot just go making rape accusations without having any proof that her accusations are true.

If you are victimized, go to court. Prosecute the crime. Don't just go home and publish an accusation on the Internet and then act surprised when you get taken to court yourself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

If she was raped, she should file charges of rape. I'm not in a position to do more than speculate, which is what we are all doing here.

However, without a rape conviction, her publicly naming the TSA agent as a rapist is defamation. Unless the TSA agent is convicted of a crime, you cannot communicate that the person is guilty of the crime without the possibility of being held accountable for that claim.

This discussion isn't really about whether or not the woman was raped or assaulted. It's about the woman defaming the TSA Agent who has not been convicted of rape by declaring she did in fact rape her.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

We don't need courts anymore then.

We sure don't need the courts we have. They don't work.

If you're rich, then yeah, sure get a lawyer. Likewise, if you're poor, then after the right to remain silent they tell you a lawyer will be appointed for you. But the public defenders only handle criminal cases.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

She has several defenses against defamation which could hold:

1) Good faith: She obviously believed that she was raped regardless of the technical definition of rape.
2) Opinion: Unless the agent denies the particular facts, the qualification of the act as "rape" in common parlance is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
3) Fair comment on a matter of public interest: The TSA search procedures and the acts of a particular TSA agent in the performance of their duty is definitely a matter of public interest. Saying that the agent in question committed rape is a fair comment given what the agent did.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

"Saying that the agent in question committed rape is a fair comment given what the agent did."

Innocent until proven guilty is still a legal basis in the United States. Just because someone tells an account of an event, does not mean the event happened exactly as the one person said.

Despite what your bias may be against TSA agents, they too have rights. Just as the woman claiming rape has the right to take her to court for it, so does the TSA agent have the right to take the woman to court for defamation. Which sounds like what she plans to do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Hm... Innocent until proven guilty is a rule for evidence and conviction in criminal cases. All that it means is that the burden of proof in a criminal trial rests upon the prosecution. It does not mean you can't be accused of committing a crime until proven in a court of law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

"It also means she too can be accused of a crime, slander. And it also means she can be taken to court. And it also means she could be convicted of slander."

Of course. Anything can happen. But we are not discussing the wild hypotheticals that the universe might provide. We are talking about the merits of the defamation case. And in this case, it is quite likely that the case does not have much merit.

So can she be accused of slander? Absolutely. Is her action likely to result in her being convicted for slander? Pretty darn unlikely. That woman did not disseminate false information because in common parlance, what she went through can indeed be called rape. Because of that it is pretty darn unlikely that a defamation suit will go anywhere. Whether she presses charges or not and whether the agent is convicted or not is irrelevant.

Fact. The only thing that is questionable in this case so far is the accusation of rape. If she was raped, file charges. Without that, statements that the agent committed this crime are clearly slander by the California civil code.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

If the TSA groper truly had a case for defamation she would file it. She doesn't and she won't. Meantime "innocent until proven guilty" is completely irrelevant--the TSA fingerbanger isn't charged with a crime; she is alleged by another citizen to have wronged her.

The appropriate standard is freedom of speech. TSA doesn't like it? Maybe they should teach their employees what the word respect means.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

The TSA agent sent a settlement letter via a lawyer as a means of not cluttering up the courts. Do you think the lawyer is going to take a case where they are just gonna file a single letter and hope she takes it? No. This will be used as evidence that they attempted to settle this matter on their own, but the defendant refused and thus they were forced to take it to court to be resolved.

Re: Re: Technical definition

But, while I tend to agree that this is over the line and against procedure and she deserves punishment, I am slow to catagorize it as rape.

A pelvic exam by a doctor is not a sexual act despite more penetration than this TSA agent, because it is for a purpose and doesn't gratify the penetrator. Same can be said of TSA agent.

I also am amazed by the amatureness of the letter from the TSA agent's law firm. I could do better with no legal training.
TSA ought to hire a better one rather than risk losing a precedent-setting case.

Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Who do you think you are fooling? A pelvic exam is just as sexual an act as any other sexual contact - how can it be anything else? The big difference is that it is (1)done with the consent of the woman involved,
(2)performed by a licensed professional, and (3)is conducted for a health related purpose. If it is done without her consent you can believe it is a crime.

The TSA exam is done (1) under duress and threat, (2) performed by an unlicensed employee (TSA screeners have no professional or occupational license and are subject to no professional disciplinary boards, as are doctors), and (3) is done for the purpose of punishing those who opt out from the body scanners. (This according to TSA rank and file employees).

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. TSA screeners know they can be rough, rude, and abusive, and get away with it; they can have you fined or jailed if you complain or refuse. (And they have done so.) That's part of the big difference between the way you are treated by an ob/gyn and a TSO, and why there is a big difference between what happens in the Doctors office and at a TSA checkpoint.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

If a doctor or dentist gives you a pelvic "exam" that you did not ask for, they are not going to escape professional sanction or criminal charges by saying they were a licensed physician performing a legitimate medical procedure. (Check with your state board of occupations and professions for examples). Same thing with a hernia exam. Whenever it involves the genitals it is sexual, and no amount of double-speak can change that.

The difference is consent. Check any college's web site on what is sexual assault.

The average TSO may not want to touch you, and take no pleasure from it. The fact remains that if he or she touches someone, anyone, deliberately and wilfully, in an intimate manner, on the job or off duty, in uniform or in ordinary street wear, at a checkpoint or anywhere else, without that persons consent, it is sexual assault.

As a practical matter, however, most DA's are not going to prosecute a TSO performing their "duty" as the TSO has the unlimited resources of the Federal Government to protect him in court. The TSA has the power to dismiss complaints without hearing. TSO's soon learn that they are "untouchable" and begin to regard passengers who complain and resent this sort of contact as trouble-makers who will not be tolerated. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Soon the TSO begins to think that there is nothing wrong in such intimate contact - he's just like a doctor! But to the passenger, nothing has changed - except that the assailant is wearing a uniform, a badege, and is above the law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

Doublespeak? You're the one saying a hernia test or pap smear is a sexual encounter, and you accuse me of doublespeak? That's rich. My wife is a midwife, and I assure you she does not consider her work as extramarital sex, and I'm sure her patients don't think they're having sex with her either.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition

You seem to be missing the point. Touching someone's genitals can be done with, or without consent. If it's done without consent, it's sexual assault.

If a doctor gives you a hernia "exam" or "pap smear" without your consent it certainly will have serious consequences for the "doctor".

On the other hand, if you consent to receive that "service", and your doctor/midwife consents to render it, there is no assault, because consent is a defense against battery. Your wife has her clients' consent; without it she cannot render services.

Even so, consent does not relieve the doctor/midwife/professional of liability for negligence, misfeasence, malfeasence, recklessness, or any other claim of misconduct, which is why ob/gyn malpractice insurance is so costly.

This is another difference between TSA and doctors. Doctors (and I presume midwives) carry professional liability insurance. TSOs do not.

Does almost count?

I was unfortunate enough to get into a one of only 2 lines out of 24 in Atlanta that go through the naked scanners. Don't you feel safer knowing only 1 in 12 lines are scanned? Anyway, I refused the scanner and was given the pat down. The TSA agent was gruff about my refusal so I thought he would give me a good search to keep me from refusing again. Thankfully he didn't enjoy it anymore than I did. But his search while pretty thorough, was nowhere near as thorough as described in this article.

So are we any safer with less than fully thorough searches? But how many people are going to tolerate this level of search? I refuse to fly except when I absolutely have to now.

Re: Re: Does almost count?

Re: Re: Re: Does almost count?

Yes, they were replying to someone. You just didn't bother reading all the comments. Also, I agree about the not haveing a V thing. Honestly, touching of balls, while still wrong, is hard to not do when searching someone. They're just plain out there. But to go up and in? Clearly intentional, so obviously it's going to seem your search was less thorough. Also, I've been doing this topic for I.S., and TSA has plenty of alternative options for policy instead of this. They choose not to look into them.

Re: Re: Does almost count?

No I don't, thanks for asking. My point, which you missed, is that while her search was completely thorough, mine was less so. If we aren't doing completely thorough searches than why do them at all? If we are going to do completely thorough searches, what percentage of the sheeple will tolerate it?

Re:

Unfortunately that would likely get you arrested and (unofficially) 'spanked'. That's the 9/11 US, a land where no right is beyond the need to prevent terrorists from... Making the US into a fear secutiry state. Seems they succeeded. Osama must be living happily with his virgins in heaven with mission accomplished.

Re: Re:

I think the analogy to the human body is appropriate here: the security forces are like the body's immune system. Sometimes, after an invader hits (the jihadists in 9/11 and 7/7) the immune system overreacts, and what some Western nations have is the equivalent of a potent autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus.

This overreaction can be calmed by drugs (mass media), but they're far too expensive and have nasty side effects (apathy, ignorance, insanity, and in extreme cases, death.)

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Looks more like rabies to me.. the frothing of the mouth by the politicians shouting about how terrorism is destroying America, while they themselves wipe their dirty feet on the constitution. The clearly irrational fear shown.

Re:

Upset

With all the horrific stuff that has happened in the history of this nation, I didn't think it could get this bad ever again. I am sitting here sick to my stomach over this story. Why is this happening? Why hasn't this been disbanded? I had no idea they check inside your privates/rape when they did the screening like this.

Re: Upset

the only way for this to end is to notify your Congressman and say that you will not stand for this.if enough people do this then something might get done.if you get no response then a boycott of the airlines on a specific date or dates will get a message to the airlines.

These things will not change until we hold our representatives to the things they claim.

They claim airplanes are a big target so we need all of this.
I would say that a terrorist attack on Capitol Hill would be a big target for the most impact on our psyche.
I think that we need to move all of this security theater to DC and push the Congresscritters into the same cattle herding we all go through.
I'm guessing they might want to skip the unproven radiation and would be offended at all of the feeling up going on.

If they want to represent us, they should have to live like us so they can understand the point of view of the people who elected them.

I'm pleased to see Mr. Randazza helping this woman fight this stupid lawsuit. He and I have several points of disagreement, but this is a case where the rights of the "little guy" need a strong fighter.

Re:

If they want to represent us, they should have to live like us so they can understand the point of view of the people who elected them.

I have been trying to advocate this for a long time.
Healthcare, security measures, etc.
I even believe they should make no more than the average american makes, and have no benefits or retirement higher than the average american. No more special treatment. They have sure proven they don't deserve it.

Re:

That's a pretty simplistic idea of sexual assault and the US legal system.

You can't prove your innocence in court. That's why it's Guilty/Not Guilty; not Guilty/Innocent. Our courts don't exist to be an absolute arbiter of truth and falsehood; our legal system ostensibly recognizes that what truly happened and what you can prove happened are often two very, very different things.

It's difficult to prove that someone was raped. Most rapes are not "stranger approaches woman in an alley and holds her at gunpoint while he rapes her" and even in those cases it's extraordinarily difficult to remove all reasonable doubt (which you must do in a criminal case) that at no point was consent issued.

And anyway, rape does not exist solely as a legal category. She doesn't need the validation of a court system to confirm that she was raped.

Re: Re:

...remove all reasonable doubt (which you must do in a criminal case) that at no point was consent issued.

Good comment, but I might correct you by saying that (in the sane states) it need only be proven that consent was at some point revoked. Giving consent and then rescinding it does not equal a license to rape (again, in the sane states).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You can try to file a report but they don't always take one.

I have personal experience with this.....We were hit by a dump truck one time and though our car was messed up and we were injured and we had the description and license plate of the person that hit us the police would not report any crime. We tried to take them to court personally--guess what we were told "he said he did not do it--there was no damage on his truck (it was a Dump truck vs a car) and so we could not prove it." End of story. That was with our car being torn up and us having injuries. So according to your logic I can never say that I was hit by XYZ (don't remember the name now) dump truck because I could not "prove" it in a court of law....

Really that is what you are saying. That because some police officer would not take a report it never happened and I can't talk about it. Do you really want to live in that sort of a world where we are muzzled like that?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your talking about 'defamation per se" which still can be defended if in the eyes of a reasonable person the actual 'charge' is true.

I would opine that Moral turpitude was definitely occurring in this instance between the TSA agent and the searched woman. Which means that Defamation would be an extremely hard

For those wondering Moral turpitude describes conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals. And in this case a reasonable person would consider the search as depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general.

Also on your reasoning it would be defamatory for someone to state and/or publish that they have gone to the police to charge someone with a criminal offence and that the police have either not charged for whatever reason, or are still investigating.

In this case the woman has stated exactly what in her viewpoint has happened to her, who did it, what she tried to do about it, and what she was told by counsel on her own blog. This is the same, though admittedly with less evidential weight, as someone filming the incident and posting it online with a summary and/or transcript. That is not defamatory, and neither is what she has done here. (My other comment to you above in another thread states more)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think you are interpreting the statute incorrectly. It's not automatically slander just because no charges have been filed. The agent still has to prove the statement is false for it to be slander.

Since the TSA is a federal agency, California jurisdiction may not even apply, and even if it did they have no means to enforce their law on non-Californians.

As a public official, the agent has a much higher burden of proof. Proving slander against a public official is nearly impossible. Also, the blog comments could be considered a "fair comment on a matter of public interest", in which even a provably false statement cannot be considered slanderous.

Re: Re:

It isn't to compare the justice system to morality. It's just if you are going to claim something happened, you should be willing to act on your beliefs.

What would you think if I published in your local newspaper that "I was walking down the street in front of Jesse's house when he came out and sexually assaulted me", call it an op-ed, and had nothing to back it up with? Would you just let it sit, or would you take action? What would you think when all of your neighbors keep asking you why you sexually assaulted me?

Think about it. If the woman was raped, she needs to claim rape. If she isn't convinced enough to take legal action, why should she get to claim the crime in her blog? Is that truly fair?

Re:

I'm not a lawyer. I am also not a Californian. However in many jurisdictions victims can't actually file charges. Only the district attorney can do so. The DA is not likely to want to try to take on the TSA so yeah no charges will get filed.

Re:

Unfortunately for your theory, victims don't file charges. Prosecutors file charges, and they have discretion as to whether or not to do so based upon their perception of the strength of the case. You would be hard-pressed to find a prosecutor who would press charges against a TSA agent specifically because it would be an extraordinarily difficult case to make.

Re: file charges

An individual can't file charges. Only a DA can file charges (or possibly the police, in some jurisdictions). DA's don't file charges against government employees, not without a lot of political cover that they just don't have.

Texas recently threatened to charge TSA employees for these actions. The Feds responded that they would shut down all air travel to Texas if that went ahead. Sadly, Texas backed down.

Re: So... how does Obama react when they do it to him or his kids?

Are... you kidding? Those people all fly on chartered planes (not least of which is Air Force One) with private security all at our tax expense. Do you think they EVER have to deal with the TSA? That's only for us low-lifes.

"...the assault on her vagina and dignity..."

Rape indeed

A essential part of rape is power over the victim. Thedala Magee had power of her victim, power given to her by the state, as a result of which she could force herself upon her victim in ways her victim did not consent to. Thedala Magee is a rapist, a state sanctioned rapist, but still a rapist.

"I honestly don't know if this reaches the "technical" definition of rape"

I'm curious how this wouldn't meet the technical definition of rape. There is no warrant or reasonable suspicion to instigate a body cavity search. Without that sort of force of law, this is equivalent to one citizen penetrating another citizen, and one would hope that would at least qualify as a sexual assault if not out and out rape.

Re:

These are administrative searches so reasonable suspicion does not apply. And since they are government agents, those crime definitions do not apply. It is illegal to threaten another person with a firearm except in self defense but police are allowed to as part of their job.

Of course, if the law were easy to understand we wouldn't need so many lawyers. It's reasonable to conclude that Miss Alkon, not being a legal expert, truly believed that what took place was rape, therefore no libel occurred.

Re: Re:

Administrative searching is what they are hiding behind. However the courts have ruled many times that this search (commonly known as a terry stop) must be both brief and minimal--usually confined to the person's clothing and pockets. That would not include a body cavity search as the TSA agent appeared to be attempting to do.

No stranger

I have no idea what happened to Ms. Alkon in the airport. I do know that she is no stranger to controversy. As with all such allegations, the credibility of the parties involved must be considered with some care.

Re: Vicki Roberts REST MY CASE

Why a surprise?

TSA agents know full well they can get away with pretty much anything. They steal from traveler's bags, molest small children, and make going through security hell for anyone with physical disabilities or handicaps.

So I'm confused according to the site this was all done through her pants.

"Nearing the end of this violation, I sobbed even louder as the woman, FOUR TIMES, stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants."

So now every time I grind with a woman on the dance floor at a club should I be concerned that she might accuse me of raping her?

I'm not saying that the exam was not excessively thorough but she chose to fly. If she didn't want to chance a body cavity search then she should not have flown or she should have chartered a private plane instead.

People need to stop whining about the TSA and start choosing another mode of transportation if they don't like the way the TSA operates their searches.

Re:

"So now every time I grind with a woman on the dance floor at a club should I be concerned that she might accuse me of raping her?"

Well, yeah, pretty much. Where ya been?

"People need to stop whining about the TSA and start choosing another mode of transportation if they don't like the way the TSA operates their searches."

Actually, choosing another way to travel is ALSO a way to protest the TSA, not an alternative to such. Most people can't afford that.

There are absolutely misdeeds being done by TSA agents, for any number of reasons; power trip, misunderstanding of the rules (deliberate or otherwise) or just plain old America incompetence. Calling them on it should be permitted. Right now, any attempt to do so is, to say the least, frowned upon. There have been numerous stories of people being pressured of outright threatened with jail for the act of filming the search of a relative, like a wife or child. The TSA permits such recording, but the agents insist this is not so, and have often demanded such recordings be turned over or destroyed.

There's been LOTS of cases of people deliberately attempting to to get a rise out of the TSA, in the hopes of just showing the video from a certain point. Those people are far more often jerks than really attempting to make a difference. Amy does not suffer fools gladly, so when it came to going to the airport, it was all but guaranteed she was gonna have a bad day.

"Keep your head down and shut up" should not be acceptable advice when dealing with the government.

Re: Re: Re:

> I used to fly my daughter out to us every
> Christmas. Now I rent a car and go pick her
> up. I refuse to submit myself or her to an
> illegal search.

I hate to tell you, but these TSA searches are expanding to train stations, bus stations, and yes, even private vehicle checkpoints. Little by little they're desensitizing people to the notion that they have no right to travel absent government inspection of their property and their person, to include their most intimate areas.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't doubt it. But every populace has a breaking point. Sadly, history tells us that breaking point can go much further than checkpoints and illegal searches. How far will Americans go before they take action to end it? That depends on people like you and many others here who are not blinded and who are willing to educate those who are. :)

Note that in that case, as soon as the Amtrak police chief found out what was going on, he bounced the TSA. As part of his job, the Amtrak police chief is expected to know something about how trains work. And the key point is that trains are built on the same general scale as armored fighting vehicles, and are correspondingly hard to damage. They don't look heavy, because they ride smoothly on steel rails, but trains are very solidly built. One odd fact is that the standard required "coupler load," how strong a railroad car has to be, end to end, is 800,000 lbs. Obviously, this scale of construction gave the Amtrak police chief a certain standing to resist the TSA, which the airlines lack.

There have been some weird train accidents. In one case in the jungles of Southeast Asia, a bull elephant charged a train in defense of his herd, killing himself, but derailing the train. The train probably wasn't a very big train-- a lot of these little railroads in the jungle were built on narrow-gauge.

If Amtrak can somehow parley the widely prevailing hate and fear of the TSA into money for new trains, that will put Amtrak in the winner's circle.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: -- Trains and TSA

> And the key point is that trains are built on the
> same general scale as armored fighting vehicles, and
> are correspondingly hard to damage.

Of course the searches at train stations are all the more ridiculous when you realize that if you wanted to destroy a train, you wouldn't even bother with trying to damage the car directly. Just remove a section of track or blow trestle 30 seconds before the train crosses it and that'll be all she wrote.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: -- Trains and TSA

Rails are themselves heavy, 100-150 lbs/yard. Doing anything to any considerable length of rail tends to involve heavy equipment. What usually happens in a derailment is that it takes a certain distance for the train to go four-and-a-half-feet off center. If the missing section of rail is only ten feet long or so, that won't happen. The train winds up with one set of wheels running along the ties between the rails, and the other set running along the ground outside the rails. The train comes to a stop in maybe a thousand feet, and there are a good number of minor injuries from people falling against furniture, etc. There are very few fatalities or major injuries.

Bad accidents usually involve collisions between trains, or derailments off bridges or viaducts. Bayou Canot was one of the worst, because a couple of passenger cars got dumped in deep water, and they didn't float very well. And this happened because the bridge had gotten whomped by a lost barge tow-- the equivalent of a ship.

Then there are embankment collapses. Thousands or millions of tons of flood-water wash away thousands of tons of dirt, undermining the track for a considerable distance. Moving dirt on that scale, by human means, tends to involve many dozers and backhoes.

Really high speed trains, incidentally, are designed with very stiff couplers, with built-in "buffers," or shock absorbers, to keep them from jack-knifing, even in a derailment. The French TGV trains have occasionally derailed, without mass-casualties.

The one real safety concern of the railroads doesn't have to do with passengers at all. It has to do with "hazmats." From time to time, the railroads have to carry Hiroshima-quantities of chlorine; cyanide; benzine, and other solvents; and various liquid/gas fuels. The railroads have programs to establish contact with local police agencies and fire departments, and make sure they don't try to handle something like that on their own.

Re:

Yep, the sexual expectations of a dance club are equal to those I have when flying to Tulsa. I know I put out on my best shirt and cologne before I swing by Screening [the hottest spot in town!] to hit on some TSA agents. Latest pick-up line: "So, how would you like your baggage handled?" Best part is, if I strike out, I can quiet my disappointment with a Cinnabon the size of my head.

Re:

Re:

Really? That's the comparison you'd like to make?

A woman grinding with you has the ability to move away or indicate to you that she doesn't want to dance with you in that way -- unless you restrain her, in which case, yes, you are sexually assaulting her. A woman who is undergoing a TSA screening does not have the ability to tell the other party to stop.

(Also, yeah, it's possible to penetrate someone through their pants. Shallowly and uncomfortably, but I doubt the TSA agent cared on either count.)

I'm getting really tired of people saying that anyone complaining about the TSA just need to get a life or pick a different mode of transportation. Like it or not, air travel is the standard mode of covering a large amount of ground quickly. Everyone's standards and boundaries are different. Just because you don't feel violated after an "enhanced pat-down" does not mean everyone else feels the same. And more to the point, the increased security theater is resource-heavy, poorly implemented, and thus far there's been no convincing proof that it's actually making anyone safer.

Re: Re:

"A woman who is undergoing a TSA screening does not have the ability to tell the other party to stop."

Citation needed.

At any time she could say, "STOP. I no longer consent to being touched by you. I wish to leave."

If the agent restrains her, prevents her from leaving the airport or takes any other action that forces her to continue to be searched, even through coercion or intimidation, then the woman should call the police, scream for help, etc.

Air travel is not a "right". Air travel is federally regulated. I do not agree with the regulations requiring me to be (potentially) searched without a warrant. So I don't fly.

Until the illegal searches are deemed so, then if you consent to them, that is your choice. If a specific agent goes beyond what is accepted and detailed in the search methods, then call the police and file charges against that agent right then.

Making accusations against the specific agent publicly is not the right way to make a stand. It changes nothing, and will likely put yourself in legal troubles.

Re: Re: Re:

'"A woman who is undergoing a TSA screening does not have the ability to tell the other party to stop."

Citation needed.'

Yeap, she has same ability to tell the other party to stop as the secretary has the ability to tell her boss to stop when he starts groping her. Rape is clearly a commonly accepted description of the events that woman is describing. It's not the legal description and so the agent will probably not be convicted, but that doesn't make what that woman said slander. Please consider what you are saying for an instant. According to what you are saying, if a woman says somebody raped her, she files charges and the rapist is not convicted due to insufficient evidence, she would then be guilty of both slander and libel. There is no way that passes the First Amendment sniff test.

"Making accusations against the specific agent publicly is not the right way to make a stand. It changes nothing, and will likely put yourself in legal troubles."

Of course it changes something. That agent's life is most likely quite shaken up as it should be.

Re: Re: Re:

At any time she could say, "STOP. I no longer consent to being touched by you. I wish to leave."

Actually, that is NOT allowed. As some of the previous stories on people being searched have noted, the TSA has made it clear that once a search starts, you are NOT allowed to walk away. The TSA claims that if you were allowed to stop the search, then terrorists could always just walk away until the day they get through.

Once you're selected for enhanced search, you are told you cannot leave.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I read the article about the man who refused once it began. An agent tried to coerce him with a threat of a civil suit. From his blog:

"I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, "then I'm leaving". He replied, "then we'll bring a civil suit against you", to which I said, "you bring that suit" and walked out of the airport."

I am unable to find policy that states if you refuse to undergo the screening and choose to leave you will be arrested. The TSA agent in the example asserted claims that were untrue. I could not find a report where the man was sued either.

I have never stated I support the searches. In fact I have repeatedly stated the opposite. I have been a strong civil libertarian for most of my life. If people are being forced against their will to be searched, these people need to be filing civil rights violation lawsuits.

My point related to your post is the TSA agent also has rights. The woman accusing her of rape has done so in a defamatory way. She should file criminal charges, submit her evidence and allow the TSA agent her defense.

But spreading lies that she is a rapist despite never even being charged with rape, and then suggesting that she has no rights to sue the accuser is ludicrous.

This is a destructive road. The stance you take because it seems on the surface to be against the TSA and their agents is actually a stance against your own rights. The ones you deny the agent will eventually denied to you.

You do not fight the destruction of the Constitution by tearing off your own piece of it in retaliation.

TSA policy re arrest

Unable to find policy?

Here it is:

"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.

"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami.

Koshetz said such passengers would be questioned "until it is determined that they don't pose a threat" to the public.

Palm Beach Post
Saturday, Nov. 20, 2010

Telling the truth is not spreading lies. Identifying your assailant is not telling lies either. I hope the TSA agent tries to bring this to court. Then the real victim can file her own interogatories, supoena the video of the incident, etc. When the evidence is presented, who do you think the jury will believe?

flying is a right-and the law

• Sorry to disagree, but Flying is a right. The common law right to travel predates the constitution, and is incorporated in the "all other rights" mentioned in the 10th amendment. Not convinced? How about 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2) "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." That's the law.

If you make a lawful purchase of anything, you have a right to what you have paid for. What makes you think otherwise?

As for filing charges, that sounds nice, but most people cannot afford the consequences-like missing their flight and being arrested. Police have no obligation to protect you, as the Supreme court has ruled. They might take your report-or they might take you to jail under arrest. It's happened. There is a youtube video of a woman molested by a TSA calling for a police officer. When the police arrived, did they take her report?

Re: Re: flying is a right-and the law

Karl, I suggest you earn a JD before making making such claims. The passenger did not make a false allegation, that can only be done by asserting, to a law enforcement agent, that someone raped you. Even then it is the law enforcement officers duty to interpret the accounts of the complainant and translate them into a proper allegation under the law (in other words determine weather a rape or a sexual assault had taken place). The passengers outcry that the TSA agent raped her, even if not legally accurate, are a permissible rhetorical device. If you are still confused I suggest you either enroll in law school or (as i strongly suggest you do) stop opining on legal matters.

Re: Re: flying is a right-and the law

"There is no right to fly, or drive a car; both are privileges and common law with respect to freedom of travel does not hold."

>>> Flying: 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2) "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

>>> Driving: 'The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.' (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

"This is no more rape or assault than any pat down used by law enforcement."

>>> Law enforcement at least makes a pretense of probable cause. However, any pat down can be done for a lewd or lacivious purpose. Gotta wonder how often sexual assault occurs that we do not hear about. See the FBI's color of law offenses for more information.

>>> For more information on sexual assault, go to any university's web site.

>>> As for the TSA, it is common knowledge that the pat down is deliberately abusive to discourage passengers from opting out from TSA's $ 200,000 each scanners.

Re:

People need to stop whining about the TSA and start choosing another mode of transportation if they don't like the way the TSA operates their searches.

I am sorry, but this just sounds like something a rapist would say after a rape..."the victim deserved what she got because she was in the wrong place or was wearing the wrong clothing." It isn't right, regardless to the circumstances, and it really doesn't matter what the victim did.

And I hate to tell you this, but TSA is branching out to the other modes of transportation too. How long before we have random TSA inspections for people driving cars like they have for interstate checkpoints?

Re:

> If she didn't want to chance a body cavity
> search then she should not have flown

Wow. It's really come to this, has it? That in the minds of a not insignificant segment of the populace, having the government conduct cavity searches as the price of travel has become perfectly acceptable.

Re:

"People need to stop whining about the TSA and start choosing another mode of transportation if they don't like the way the TSA operates their searches."

People need to stop whining about terrorists and wasting my tax dollars on the TSA, and start choosing another mode of transportation if they are sniveling wimps that can't fly without worthless TSA searches.

Re:

Because the same arguments can easily be applied to other modes of transportation, it needs to stop here. The price should not be so high on such a common activity. Maybe if someone wants to be given a tour of the reactor room of a warship, but not for something so everyday as flying on a plane. Airline jets are privately owned so I don't see why a chartered flight should be any different. One follows a preset schedule and one doesn't but other than that they're the same. The fact that something is voluntary shouldn't be a universal justification for any and all actions. There are a heck of a lot of things that could be considered voluntary. If everyone choose not to fly, no business would get done and there would be a huge economic crash, so no it's not voluntary.

Another jackboot thug story about the TSA. What really chaps me is that it is the government oking this.

Notice that these stories keep coming and they keep getting worse. It's only when it comes down to getting the public ire up that TSA will even address the issue. Other than that they wait for the turmoil to die down and proceed on to ratchet up the abuse. Reminds you of the frog in the water on the stove.

Only when the public really gets riled about such stories does the TSA make any sort of comment. Then it is always, we're doing it by the book so it's ok, that's our job, or some such comment to say that jackbooting is just fine.

More and more are flying less and less if they have the choice. I suspect this was the real motivation behind the TSA to begin with and as usual, terrorism is the selling point. Police states would rather you not go places where it takes extra effort to keep track of you.

This sounds very plausible

I know someone (call her "Alice") who flew recently. She had not flown in many years, so while she was prepared for some inconvenience she had no idea how deep the rabbit hole of TSA abuse and incompetence really was.

On her trip home, she set off the metal detector and told the TSA agent that it was probably the underwire in her bra. The TSA agent said she'd have to get a pat-down anyway. Alice requested the scan instead, and the agent immediately called over her supervisor -- a short, fat, "I was unpopular as a kid, but now I'm drunk on power" lout of a woman. This TSA "leader" was abrupt to the point of abusiveness. Had Alice not been traveling alone, this would have been prime video fodder to show the "quality" of the personnel working for the TSA. To quote one line from her very loud tirade, "You can either get a pat-down right now or I can walk you out of this airport right now."

Alice submitted to the pat-down, but she tried to keep an eye on her purse, phone, keys etc. which were sitting 20 feet away on the other side of the now-unattended scanner while dozens of passengers walked all around that area. After reprimanding Alice, the agent groping her finally yelled over to another agent in a mocking tone, "Can you get her stuff so we can get this done?"

They finally concluded (like the consummate security professionals they are) that it was the underwires in Alice's bra setting off the metal detector. Amazing!

Anyone traveling on a tight schedule or out of urgent need (as Alice was) knows the TSA has you over a barrel. They don't even have to fine you. Missing an $800 flight and potentially a day or two of travel time on a three day trip is a pretty effing steep fine for, "you just annoyed me but you have no avenue for appeal" abuse of authority.

If I had my way, the TSA would not only be abolished, but having TSA employment listed on your resume' would be the most shameful thing imaginable. This is a despicable organization. And don't give me crap about "not everyone who works there is like that". The stain of TSA incompetence and abuse is prevalent throughout the organization. Anyone who associates themselves with the TSA in any way should be deeply, deeply ashamed. It's. That. Bad.

Oh, by the way, during that trip Alice traveled both directions, through four checkpoints before remembering after the last one that she was carrying a large maximum strength canister of pepper spray (twice as strong as issued to law enforcement). But, as God is their witness, the TSA found the underwires in her bra and made sure she knew THEY were in charge and that Alice was in the category of "little people". Bravo! We can rest easy -- eight BILLION dollars a year in TSA funding is money being well-spent. Not a dime of fraud, waste, or abuse in that budget!

Re: This sounds very plausible

I'll echo those who are disturbed by the tenor of some of the comments here. It's often extremely difficult to prove either rape or sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, as would be required in a criminal trial. In the absence of third-party witnesses or unambiguous physical evidence, many genuine victims will find it simply impossible to meet that standard of proof. (Remember, someone can be acquitted if even if a "preponderance of the evidence" suggests they are guilty.) Isn't that bad enough without demanding that victims in those many cases be silent about their experiences unless they can meet the evidentiary standard appropriate to a criminal prosecution?

In this case in particular, applying the criminal standard seems outrageous, since Alkon can reasonably understood to be complaining that the government has decided to permit and immunize conduct that should (and in other circumstances would) be classified as rape or sexual assault. To permit a defamation suit under those circumstances is to say, in effect, that the government may bar people from naming an abuse of power, simply by immunizing itself from prosecution for that abuse.

Re:

To allow someone to make an accusation of rape with no need to actually prove it is not a precedent that will be useful. Every single person who goes through a TSA patdown could get the name of the TSA agent and go around publishing their name and calling them a rapist. It wouldn't matter if the TSA agent actually didn't even touch them. If the person does not have to to prove anything truly happened to them, then they could just accuse everyone they wanted to of rape.

Re: Re:

Actually that's not true. If you are actually lying about the facts, that is in fact defamation. If you are calling "rape" what the law calls something else, that is not defamation.

"If the person does not have to to prove anything truly happened to them, then they could just accuse everyone they wanted to of rape."

You know, just because the crime of which you are accused is accusing someone else of a crime does not reverse the presumption of innocence. If I am prosecuted for defaming a TSA agent and accusing them of rape, I am also presumed innocent during the proceeding and it is up to the prosecutor to prove that I did not tell the truth. Think about how silly what you are proposing is: If I take the stand and say that someone did something illegal and that person is not convicted, I would then have to prove that I did not lie on the stand.

Re: Re: Re:

If I am accused of rape I do not have to prove I didn't rape someone in order to prove defamation. In the U.S. innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.

If someone starts telling the world I am a rapist, and I have not even been charged with rape, then my proof of defamation is I have not been convicted of rape. I do not have the burden of proof upon me to prove the statement that I am a rapist is in fact not true.

The person calling me a rapist has to prove that I am if they want their claim to be true and thus not defamatory.

That would require filing rape charges against me, presenting the evidence and winning a conviction.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If I am accused of rape I do not have to prove I didn't rape someone in order to prove defamation. In the U.S. innocence is assumed until guilt is proven."

You are contradicting yourself. If what you said was true, then the person saying that you raped them would be guilty of defamation until they proved themselves to be innocent by proving your guilt. That would of course be an absurd and unconstitutional situation and that is thankfully not how the justice system works.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The fact the the woman tried to have the charges filed but failed should be enough. You do not need a conviction. Where is this place where anyone can file criminal charges against someone else. In my country (the US), only a DA can do that, and they could choose not to do so for a number of reasons, not the least of which is political pressure. What do you have to say about this case?http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/05/26/texas-fight-against-tsa-groping-is-over-feds -win/Do you seriously think a single DA would be willing to stand up to the feds if they can pressure an entire state government to back down?

Defamation is for provably false statements. If you can't prove it it's not defamation. Last I looked criminal trials do not prove innocence only guilt.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Isn't there a presumption of non-liability? If the plaintiff presents some weak evidence, and (just for the sake of argument) the defense doesn't present any evidence, would the plaintiff win even with a totally unconvincing case? It seems like there must be some kind of bar that has to be passed, even in a civil case. I hope, anyway.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The plaintiff would lose, because unlike some have suggested, the plaintiff must prove that the statement is false, not the other way around. If you don't respond at all, the plaintiff might win a default judgment but that's different than showing up but just not presenting any evidence.

Re: Re:

To permit a defamation suit under those circumstances is to say, in effect, that the government may bar people from naming an abuse of power, simply by immunizing itself from prosecution for that abuse

Your proposition completely neuters our civil liberties, because it means that we cannot classify ANYTHING as illegal without launching a lawsuit in connection with that claim. Are you really so dense you can't imagine how that would chill all kinds of speech in a massive way?

For example, under your system, I can't criticize the government about their illegal wiretapping on millions of Americans without PERSONALLY suing the government all by myself (even though I may have no standing to do so, and, by virtue of being a secret program, have little power to collect the evidence). Nor can I call America's many wars "illegal wars". And hell, you can't even discuss the very issue of defamation because, by incorrectly classifying someone's legal speech as defamation, you may be committing defamation yourself. Catch-22!

Luckily, you don't have the faintest idea of what you're on about, but it's still scary that your type is out there breeding. You're especially dangerous because your type thinks they're very kind and reasonable ("taoareyou"), when, in fact, you suffer from a terrible brand of aggressive zealotry diametrically opposed to the democratic principles enshrined in the constitution, and you don't even realize it....

If you don't see what's wrong with this picture, imagine how you'd feel if this was your girlfriend, wife, mother, sister or daughter.
And you had to watch as some government lackey ran her fingers around, on top of and inside her genitals.

Amy Alkon

I trust that Amy Alkon will be victorious and hope that she counter sues her assailant. I will gladly contribute to her legal fund and appreciate that she exposed these abusive thugs for the criminals that they are.

TSA attracts misfits that delight in abusing their piece of authority by harassing. molesting and humiliating the people they are supposed to be protecting.

In the wake of 9/11 Congress gave DHS carte blanche to do whatever they want to the American people. The result is that the department has assaulted their own citizens and carried out crimes against humanity and the Constitution.

This has culminated in TSA digitally strip searching and reaching into the pants of children all without any accountability. It is no wonder TSA complaints are up 40% over last year. This is unacceptable and those responsible must be held accountable.

I'm flying Friday night for the first time since the TSA started its mandatory sexual assault program. I'm suddenly wondering what I can do that won't get me arrested or won't make me miss my flight. I'm wondering what apparently innocuous subject of conversation would make the agent the most uncomfortable. Perhaps discussing his wife and kids. Perhaps a comment along the lines of: "I think people are complaining so much about these searches because they feel insecure in their sexuality. I don't have such a problem and really don't mind a guy touching my genitals. I mean, you're not getting aroused are you? And even if you did, you're a fairly good looking guy... haha."

Re:

Re:

I recently had the joy of flying for the first time in ~5 years, and was selected for the scanner twice. I opted out both times. After politely ensuring and insisting that my belongings be kept within my sight (you're not allowed to touch them, apparently), I followed instructions and whistled my favorite love song while I was groped. Considering what we (taxpayers) pay for it, it was entirely uneventful. Maybe it was the boxers, but he didn't even make contact on the side I "carry" on. Security? Feh.

I say this without in any way trying to diminish Ms. Alkon's experience. My experience was clearly more boring and far less intimate than hers.

TSA Abuse

The TSA does not listen. The local governments will not prosecute. It is all legal abuse.

I say --and I am serious--let's all learn how to fart. Fart out loud frequently and loudly while being molested by the TSA agents. Then blush and say "excuse me." Say,"When someone touches my genitals I can't help but fart!" It is as good a strategy as I can think of to fight back!

LOL

The current secondary search protocol at all airports in the America, IE.the pat down is by definition, invasive. If by either intentional malice, or poor procedure, undue, or unnecessary contact was made, that is an issue. I can even go so far as to say it could be emotionally disturbing, based on the make up of the individual. In my opinion however, this is a played up incident, from an apparently overly sensitive, or attention hungry (or both I haven't yet decided) woman.Certainly there was better recourse than to do what occurred. She is at best naive and at worst, attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Frankly, I would sue too. In her opinion it was rape. Good thing her opinion does not define law.

Defense is Grasping

In Gold v. Harrison, 962 P.2d 353 (Haw. 1998), cert denied, 526 U.S. 1018 (1999), the Hawai’i Supreme Court held that a defendant’s characterization of his neighbors’ seeking an easement in his backyard as “raping [the defendant]” was not defamatory. This speech was protected as rhetorical hyperbole

The problem with this, is there was no rhetorical hyperbole in this statement. She accused the defendant with a direct crime. No "literary license" was taken here. It's a straight up accusation of sexual rape. This is covered clearly in California civil code:

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 46: Slander

46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:

1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,convicted, or punished for crime;

2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;

3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits

She is falsely charging the agent with a crime. She isn't using metaphor, she isn't being poetic. This is not free speech, this is slander. Slander is not protected speech and is prohibited in California.

I say falsely because the agent has not been proven guilty. She hasn't even been legally charged with a crime. Making an accusation, even if you believe that accusation to be true personally, does not make it true for the rest of the world.

You simply cannot try to destroy the life of someone because you "feel" like you have been wronged. If you are raped or assaulted, you take them to court, present the evidence and seek a conviction.

If this is not considered slander, then any person can accuse someone else of rape with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Should someone who is unhappy with you be allowed to spread lies about you? Should they be able to tell everyone you are a rapist. Should they be allowed to publish accusations that you are a rapist online where everyone can read them?

Without slander laws holding people accountable for what they state as fact, you cannot stop them. You have no choice but to let your reputation and your career be destroyed.

Remember the Duke Lacrosse team? Do you remember all the torment they went through before it was finally revealed that they were falsely accused?

Every person deserves the right to defend themselves in court.

I believe the woman who claimed she was raped has the same rights. But her rights do not trump the agent's rights. If the agent committed a crime, she should be held accountable.

If the accuser has committed slander, she too, should be held accountable. I see a lot of bias against TSA agents and a lot of unsupported claims. I really expect more from the Techdirt community to be honest.

I do not believe the searches are legal. If you don't, then do not consent. If that means you don't fly, then don't fly. Nobody ever said that standing up for your rights was easy.

I don't think most of the TSA agents are bad people. Certainly there are some on power trips and certainly there are some that go beyond what they should. Those who do should have their actions prosecuted. If you just cop out and say "well it won't work, the courts suck" etc. then you are responsible for allowing it to continue just as much as the TSA agents are for just "dong their jobs". You both accept it and refuse to question.

Authority is not some magical force. Authority is given by the people. YOU. You as citizens bestow authority and you as citizens can revoke it.

Stop electing people to office that choose to violate your rights. Stop electing people to office that want to trample on the Constitution. Stop accepting that you have to just go along. Stand up. Speak out. Educate people. Let them know they do have a say in their government.

I apologize for repeating myself so much :) I just hate seeing smart people with a mob mentality. I hate seeing people willing to strip the rights of others in order to give them to someone else. When the truth is, we ALL have the same rights. Taking rights away from anyone, even someone you don't like only hurts us all.

Re: Defense is Grasping

On Libel:

"As in other jurisdictions, California law permits the defense of substantial truth and would absolve a defendant even if she cannot 'justify every word of the alleged defamatory matter; it is sufficient if the substance of the charge be proved true, irrespective of slight inaccuracy in the details.' . . . Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as 'the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified.' Heuer v. Kee, 15 Cal. App. 2d 710, 714(1936)." Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 517 (1991).

Similarly:

"A commentator who advocates one of several feasible interpretations of some event is not liable in defamation simply because other interpretations exist. Consequently, remarks on a subject lending itself to multiple interpretations cannot be the basis of a successful defamation action because as a matter of law no threshold showing of 'falsity' is possible in such circumstances. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 512-13, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1966, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984)." Hunter v. Hartman, 545 N.W.2d 699, 707 (1996).

The gist, the sting of the blogger's charge, which she describes in specifics, is that she was inappropriately manhandled. Whether you agree that what was described is "rape" or not, you understand what the writer is saying.

Re: Re: Defense is Grasping

"You raped me."

This is not something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped. When you tell someone that you were raped it doesn't leave people speculating as to what happened. It is a serious accusation for a serious crime. In fact, aside from murder it's probably one of the most horrible acts that one human can impose on another.

Because of this, the effect of being accused of rape is paramount and rightly so...IF you are guilty of rape.

The problem with this case is the woman made NO effort to file charges. The woman simply took her name, screamed YOU RAPED ME and went on about her business. She contacted one lawyer, who didn't feel she had a case.

She then took it upon herself to name the TSA agent and make public statements that she was raped by the agent. She did this verbally and in writing.

Again, this wasn't some metaphor or a statement of opinion such as "I felt as if I was raped". It was a very clear and distinct accusation of a crime. The proper course was to file criminal charges. THIS is how you legally accuse someone of a crime. NOT in a blog.

The TSA Agent's name is being associated with rape despite no rape conviction OR EVEN LEGAL CHARGES of rape.

You believe she should be denied the right to have this cleared. You choose to ignore defamation laws that specifically address false accusations of crimes. You wish for the TSA Agent to have no rights to defend herself simply because you wish to believe the accusations against her.

Will this come to pass? I truly hope not. And when it comes to the time that you get falsely accused of a crime you didn't commit, I will stand for your rights to defend against defamation as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping

Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return.

She boarded her plane, flew to Birmingham, the from there went to New York. She attended a conference. She came back home. She called a single lawyer who wouldn't take her case.

Not once does she say she tried to call the police. Not once did she say she attempted to file charges and the police said no, you cannot.

No, you aren't interested in the facts. Like so many people reading this, you just want to believe the defamatory accusations of Ms. Alkon. Who is a syndicated columnist, author, and blogger. I don't know how many readers she has, but I'm sure their reactions are similar to those here.

People read her blog and believe that she was sexually raped by the TSA agent. This is an unproven accusation and is therefore false. Ms. Alkon made NO attempt to file charges.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping

Your facts have failed. Lawyers don't take criminal cases unless they're representing the defense. She was either getting advise or talking to a prosecutor. If the later, there is no alternative if they tell you no.

People read her blog and believe that she thinks she was raped by the TSA.

Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping

I wouldn't class this as defamation, it sounds like a rhetorical statement given the context, and should be perfectly within her rights. It'd probably be classed as sexual assault here in the UK, although IANAL.

I know horribly well the pain and aggravation caused by false rape allegations as a late friend of mine was falsely accused of rape. The charges were eventually dropped. This, amongst other things, more than likely contributed to his later suicide.

Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping

This is not something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped.'

Given the fact that rape is used as a euphemism for just about any and all perceived personal violations, that is clearly something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped.

"It was a very clear and distinct accusation of a crime."

Her blog post clearly described the events which she said happened and she called the actions of the TSA agent "rape". As such, she did not make a "very clear and distinct accusation of a crime" any more than liberals make a "very clear and distinct accusation of a crime" when they say Republicans are "raping" Obama. The only thing that matters here is not whether "rape" was legally constituted and proved in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt. What matters for the purposes of the defamation lawsuit is whether the specific acts that the woman accused the TSA agent of are shown to be false or not.

Re: Defense is Grasping

46. Slander is an unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:

1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,convicted, or punished for crime;

The above is how I think you are reading the code. Look carefully. It it different from the actual code.

If she had stated that agent has been charged or convicted of rape, that would be false, but she is quite clear that she is describing her version of an event and that despite her wishes, the agent has not been charged. That is the truth.

You don't seem to understand how hard it is to get criminal charges filed against a federal agent. It is so rare there's probably less then 5 cases in the last 50 years.

Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping

In theory. But it's much easier to prove you have not been charged or convicted. To say that someone is per se in violation just because there have been no charges filed is silly. Obviously there is going to be a period between when a crime is committed and charges are filed, sometimes a very long time.

@Mike Masnick: I really dislike the current system for airport security, but perhaps you could, on occasion, find yourself massively troubled about an attention seeking *&*@! who goes on to try and publicly accuse people of rape without so much as a shred of evidence or standing, and clogging the crap out of an already bloated court system. Just a thought...

Re:

What's your evidence that she's "attention seeking"? Do you have video evidence of her characterizing herself as attention seeking? Do you have a signed affidavit where she admits to attention seeking?

Re: Re:

Re:

And as for

>clogging the crap out of an already bloated court system

She isn't clogging anything, because she hasn't filed a suit. Seems you forgot that part in your little fit of e-anger. DERP!

There will never be a time where our courts are finally unclogged, so are you saying that only "really rapey rapes" should be prosecuted? How rapey should a rape be before the raped charge the rapists? Only violent alley rapes, but not date rapes? Maybe limit ourselves only to gangrapes of underage girls in highschool parking lots? That one was awfully rapey, surely it was important enough to be granted attention from our awfully busy system. However, for the less rapey rapes, due process will have to wait.

This is insanity. So the TSA agent not only wants to be able to under color of law assault people. (At minimum this is sexual assault). She also does not want anyone to be able to describe what they experienced at her hands in public.

Look TSA lady if you are fine with what your procedure required you to do say so and that is the end of it. You are not likely to be prosecuted and punished by the law--the TSA has claimed law enforcement like immunity from prosecution. Oh, well you don't like people knowing that you put your hands all the way up into someone's genitals--get a different job. If you are going to tell me "don't like it don't fly." Then I am going to tell you "don't like the publicity, get another job."

Unless the TSA agent is denying that she did indeed put the side of her hands up into the woman's vulva and separate the labia (and I did not read a denial of that fact,) then I don't see where there is any question of defamation. She did in fact penetrate this woman's genitals (commonly called rape)--now she may have the law for the time being on her (the TSA agent's side) and is thus immune from prosecution. So I see no defamation. Unless she is saying that she did not do that, she just does not like the bad press. Tough

For those saying "File charges"
If you think that the victim can easily file charges against a TSA agent then you have never known anyone who tried to. It is nearly impossible to do so. If you do, you can expect retaliation every time you try to fly--I say try because it is quite likely they will put you on a "watch list" and make your life as difficult as possible.

The Constitution is a contract and it goes both ways. If the courts will not allow the victim to directly prosecute this thug for misusing her authority, then it's time for armed resistance. The police work for us, and those who break their oaths must and will answer to us.

Double Standards

I was arrested, and despite having all charges dropped entirely, my mugshot along with a highly biased description of the event is now indexed by google for all to see. Tell me: Not having the TSA to back me, how the hell am I supposed to get a job with this legally sanctioned slander haunting me? It is - in this new world - perfectly legal to slander people.

If some slimy authoritarian pussbag wants to finger passengers against their will, then let the name be known to all, and let it properly suffer.

RE file charges

What recourse does the common man have when those in authority REFUSE to take , follow up on, or investigate a crime?
The whole TSA idea was to make us safer, from what?
Life is fatal folks, sorry to tell ya, but it is, 100%. Yes we can minimize risk, but how far?
I have read the Constitution several times, and the bill of rights, I have yet to see the "right" of "public safety". Security in your home and possessions, yes, but not in public as far as I can discern.

If your "right" to safety infringes on my right to privacy, maybe YOU should stay home.

the Idea that a position of authority can do no wrong is absurd, Power corrupts, and the TSA power corrupts absolutely.....

Terrorists must be so proud

Isn't this exactly what terrorists want? So we would change our way of life and give up substantial liberties to achieve security? Dear Americans, it seems to me that TSA is giving up to terrorists on your behalf... and encouraging more terrorist attacks by showing that this strategy just works.

TSA has lost it

Poking fingers at or into any place on someone's body in search of a bomb is an absurdity beyond logical boundaries.

If there is a bomb, there will be a really long line of maimed travelers (and TSA agents).

I am glad that at least our true guardians of our freedom and the law (police, national guard, coast guard, military, etc) are trained in proper bomb detection and destruction.

And oh yeah... Bombarding a possible bomb carrier with high frequency radiation is also absurd.

If the TSA really believed that a passenger is carrying a bomb, I can't imagine that they'd be poking and prodding rather than running and hiding (or at least wearing a bomb protection suit).

Unless... of course... it's all a money game. I mean who does own the company that received the 100+ million dollar contract for the scanners/procedures/etc. Not the former head of the DHS...? Nah... couldn't have been him...

Re: TSA has lost it

Also, if someone is carrying a liquid container that happens to be a bomb, they can try over and over again to get it on a plane because the only thing that happens if they're caught is that the TSA make them throw it away. That signals to me that it's not about security but about control. It's also obviously a political stunt since the only things we bother securing are the places we have been hit in the past. With locked cockpit doors and vigilant passengers, there is no reason at all for the TSA to exist. Since it's impossible for the government to police itself, what this woman did is the only effective course of action the public has.

This stuff

Native Americans, African Americans and many others were classified as terrorists at one time. But was it they or their killers that were the terrorists? When will people be able to see through the lies of conquerors? 9-11 was just one of many US government sponsored facades. What the TSA is doing is accomplishing nothing more than intimidation. The agents that are employed by the ruling class of this world could easily send a cleaning crew to plant a ton of bombs in any plane or send a plane crashing down by remote control anytime they want. All airliners have remote controls, now believe what you want and continue buying airline tickets to Disney World. They formed the illegal Federal Reserve and they killed JFK, but so what, you go ahead and keep believing whatever you want.

This is about the first amendment, not rape laws

Something no-one seems to be bringing up is the fact that she is not trying to prove rape. As is stated in the lawyer's response, even if this incident does not qualify as rape the use of the term is justified under "rhetorical hyperbole". Regardless however, the evidence is not in question here and the facts of the events in the airport have not been disputed by either party from what I can see.

What is in question here is whether or not it is defamation to name and shame the TSA agent for what she did. Given that she has at no point disputed Amy's version of events, only complained about the actions she took I don't feel that she has a leg to stand on. It is Amy's first amendment right to state her opinions of the facts as loudly and at a whatever length she pleases. If the TSA agent says that she's lying about what happened then she can make a case for defamation. Until then this is just more constitution trampling bullshit.

Re: This is about the first amendment, not rape laws

Claiming defamation is refuting her accusation. No, the First Amendment doesn't protect against slander and libel. Do you know what rhetorical hyperbole is? Just because one instance of using the word rape under specific circumstances was called rhetorical (in which the man was not alleging that he was actually sexually raped, but used raped in a different context) does not mean EVERY use of the word is.

In this case, she is claiming she was sexually raped when she has not presented any evidence to that fact and never even attempted to file charges or even contact the police.

When the TSA agent contacted a lawyer, and they decided to file defamation charges, that is a legal response to Ms.Alkon's accusation. And that response is, you are lying.

It will be up to Ms. Alkon to prove she was raped for her statement to be true. She can't say, well I feel like I was raped. That is not what her blog says or what she has been telling people or what she screamed out at the airport before going on with her plans.

Re: Re: This is about the first amendment, not rape laws

I would agree except for the fact that the details of that events that took place are at no point disputed. All that the TSA agent and her lawyers take issue with is Amy's reaction to what happened, not her account of what happened. They at no point say that she makes a false statement regarding the events, just her labelling of them as constituting rape. If she were to put up a post naming the agent and describing clinically what happened their letter would not apply at all. Therefore the thing that they are taking issue with is her personal colouring of those events, i.e. her opinion.

Re: Re: Re: This is about the first amendment, not rape laws

I would agree except for the fact that the details of that events that took place are at no point disputed

She is claiming defamation. This is a legal response to the accusation. In fact it is the ONLY way she can legally respond because her accuser did not file charges against her. A defamation claim is saying that Thedala Magee is calling Ms. Alkon a liar. She disputes the claim that she raped Ms. Alkon.

The TSA is raping America

Thedala Magee should be thankful that there are people like Amy Alkon who have the courage to speak out loudly in defense of our liberty when others have tolerated this legalized humiliation in fearful silence

"Fearful". A word I would never before have associated with an American citizen in regard to our government. That only happened in foreign governments with dictators and military regimes.

People who speak out for Liberty have always been the ones we read about in the history books—the ones we look up to.

The TSA is raping America

We are Freedom to Travel USA, an organization dedicated to regaining freedoms taken away from us by the TSA. We believe that suspicionless unwanted touching should not be a condition of travel. We believe that being subject to the equivalent of Peeping Toms without cause should not be a condition of travel. We believe that exposing ourselves to radiation, however small, should not be a condition of travel. We believe that merely the presence of a medical device, in and of itself, should not constitute "probable cause." h t t p : / / fttusa. o r g

TSA perverts

Useless, perverted TSA, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our rights:
They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
Impeach Obama, vote for Ron Paul.
(Last link of Banned Book):http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526

rights and duties

Flying is a right. The common law right to travel predates the constitution, and is incorporated in the "all other rights" mentioned in the 10th amendment. Not convinced? How about 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2) "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." That's the law.

The 4th Amendment guarantees all of us protection against unreasonable searches. What is unreasonable? Anything capricious, abritrary, extraordinary, unusual, or without reason (probable cause). That pretty much describes the "enhanced" pat down.

Some people say that we "give up" our rights when we buy a ticket. They forget that rights are inalienable; that is, something that cannot be given up, bought or sold. We may chose to consent to an unreasonable search, but it cannot be a condition of a contract, and we still retain the right to say no.

By the way, this policy of routinely violating the 4th amendment rights of passengers at airports may place TSA in conflict with The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 14141 ("Section 14141").

This authorizes the Attorney General to conduct investigations and, if warranted, file civil litigation to eliminate a "pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers ... that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

That's not all. In many states, when a third party interferes with the performance of a contract (your ticket is evidence of a contract between you and the airline) they may be liable for "Tortious interference."

A final point. Interfering with an individual's rights constitutes a nuisance. When a government agency unreasonably interferes with the rights of the public this constitutes a public nuisance. "A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the public's right to property. It includes conduct that interferes with public health, safety, peace or convenience."

Passengers have rights. TSA has duties. Among their duties is to obey the constitution, not to violate it.

For more information, contact the National Association of Airline Passengers.

While reading this and trying to overlook the trolling, I've seen a lot of "if she was raped she should prosecute!"

The only thing I have to add to this conversation is a bit of experience.

I've been assaulted and sexually abused on more than one occasions. In some cases it was my exhusband. It one case it was a stranger.

I've also been robbed numerous times.

Not once when I sought help was I ever. Ever. afforded a report, a lawyer, a judge. Anything. I was shushed and pushed away. I was a single mother. I had no money.

I'm married now, happy, and have a steady income. We're military.

We got robbed.

And for the first time there was an officer who took me seriously enough to take a report and promise to try to pursue the situation.

So.

She was told it was a "no-starter". I've heard things like that before.

The law doesn't uphold the people as much as idealists would like the believe. And that's just a sad, bitter truth.

Speaking out is in many cases a first step to getting justice. And if her blog was the only way to do it, then more power to her. And even better that people actually listened to her blog. Not everyone is so lucky as that, in this world.

Next time you fly....

Next time I fly, I am going to demand that a female TSA thug pat me down. I am a man and I don't want another man patting me down. I want a woman to put her hands on me. I will also make comments after the pat down to her. Comments like, "You know you want more of me. Here's my number. Call me." and (if she is married), "I saw in your eyes that you seem to have found something that your husband can not provide you. Here's my number, call me and you can have some of what you have not been given."

The goal of every airline passenger should be to let the TSA know that they are sick of being treated like criminals and being violated by government decree. This is a protest that they can not stop. We have the right to speak.

Next time you fly....

Next time I fly, I am going to demand that a female TSA thug pat me down. I am a man and I don't want another man patting me down. I want a woman to put her hands on me. I will also make comments after the pat down to her. Comments like, "You know you want more of me. Here's my number. Call me." and (if she is married), "I saw in your eyes that you seem to have found something that your husband can not provide you. Here's my number, call me and you can have some of what you have not been given."

The goal of every airline passenger should be to let the TSA know that they are sick of being treated like criminals and being violated by government decree. This is a protest that they can not stop. We have the right to speak.

Sexual Assault

"Although these definitions seem clear, people are often confused as to whether they have been sexually assaulted or not, or even if they have been raped or not..."

"In many cases, survivors may feel that because they were not seriously hurt physically, it wasn’t really rape. This is not true. ANY sexual contact forced upon you by someone against your will is illegal, against the UCLA Student Code of Conduct and against UCLA University Policy. It is illegal and wrong..."

"Although people typically think of a man assaulting a woman, rape and sexual assault occur between people of the same-sex as well."

FBI's website on Color of Law Abuses says the following:

"Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply."

Common reactions to sexual assault as per Virginia Tech's website:

"Every person reacts differently to traumatic experiences; there is no "right" reaction to a sexual assault. Below are examples of possible reactions to sexual assault.

"Sexual assault is motivated by hostility, power, and control. Clinical studies of offenders find that sexual assaults are not motivated by a biological desire."

Many people who experience sexual assault are in a profound state of shock and may not be capable of contacting authorities and pressing charges, especially when the perp is one of the authorities. The authorities may not want to fight the system they are part of. As a victim, you have rights, but the government may, and often does, ignore those rights.

The National Association of Airline Passengers is working to reform Federal and State laws to bring accountability to the TSA. See our website for more information.

anti-SLAPP

Evidence of Defamation

Google, Thedala Magee. Read the horrible things being said about her: rapist, thug, etc. as if she was proven guilty. As of this comment, google found 594 articles with her name and the overwhelming majority are very negative.

Google Julian Assange rape. You will find articles saying rape claims, accused of rape, and questioning the charges of rape as an anti-wikileaks plot.

By reading articles on the Net, a LOT of people question the rape charges against Assange yet Thedala Magee is assumed to be guilty.

You don't like the actions of the TSA. Many people don't, including me. That doesn't mean that Thedala Magee, because she works for the TSA, can automatically be assumed guilty of rape just because she is accused.

I don't know that she isn't guilty. But until she is convicted of rape charges in court, I will assume she is innocent and will not proclaim she is a rapist. I do the same for Assange. I do the same for anyone where I do not have personal knowledge of the events.

However the actions of Ms.Alkon are defamatory. Thedala Magee's name has been now smeared worldwide. The story has been picked up by major websites such as Forbes. The lawyer for Thedala Magee will have thousands of pages of evidence showing posts where people, based on the unproven claims of Ms. Alkon, believe her to be a rapist.

There is a HUGE double standard here because of the bias against the TSA. If you choose not to see it because you want to accept Ms.Alkon's account as absolute fact without the slightest need for evidence or prosecution, then you too are evidence that defamation has in fact occurred.

Re: Evidence of Defamation

"There is a HUGE double standard here because of the bias against the TSA. If you choose not to see it because you want to accept Ms.Alkon's account as absolute fact without the slightest need for evidence or prosecution, then you too are evidence that defamation has in fact occurred."

If defamation has occurred it was not done by Ms. Alkon's likely truthful description of the events surrounding that day. I am willing to believe Ms. Alkon because of the testimonies of hundeds of people at the hands of the TSA. If Ms. Alkon's statements were the only example I had of sexual abuse by a TSA agent, and I was basing my entire opinion only on her statements then yes you could argue that. However, I have read hundreds of statements of the rampant sexual abuse that occurs daily at TSA check points. I have great distrust and disgust for anyone who is associated with them. So if Ms. Magee has been defamed it was by her own choice to remain employed by an agency engaged in such abuse.

Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation

She is assumed to be guilty because she is a member of an agency that has as a part of it's procedures that she "push the side of her hand into someone's genitals until she meets resistance"--now doing that on me with anything more than a feather touch would separate my labia and would enter my vaginal cavity. That is whey she is considered guilty because the very protocols she is following dictate that she invade this person's genitals. Which is at minimum wrong if not illegal. So she is being ostracized because of her chosen job--and someone's truthful description of her doing her job. If she does not like that she should get a new job.

Re: Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation

I see. So you are stating that the TSA policy is they are permitted to rape people. Really? Hell, why don't they just take citizens to the back room, strip them naked and sexually rape them. Holding them down, against their will, forcing their fingers up inside their vagina repeatedly? According to you, they are allowed to rape.

I am no longer surprised that we are losing our rights. It's not because some powerful shadow government force is taking them from us. It's because we are just throwing them away.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation

TSA states their own policy.
Yes, they have private areas for screening.
Yes, the TSA has forcibly disrobed at least one passenger, exposing her breasts in public.
Yes, TSA claimed in court recently that they have the authority to strip search.

The TSA makes their own claims about what they are allowed to do. Don't come crying to me if I tell you what they have said about themselves.

By the way, rape and sexual assault do not require force - the threat of force is sufficient. Penetration through clothing is rape - check the law. There are plenty of creditable reports of this against the TSA. It doesn't even make the headlines anymore.

People don't lose their rights by throwing them away. People always lose their rights through fraud, deception, force and violence by government. It's called usurpation. Even when the abuses are common knowledge, however, the government always has torries, who seek to justify government abuses and say its the victims fault. Disgusting.

TSA has acquired in a short time a reputation for Theft and Sexual Assault. Maybe that's because they are stealing from and assaulting passengers on a daily basis. Some of it hits the headlines. A lot of it does not.

TSA doesn't have to be a hateful agency to do its job. But power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When the TSA doesn't see anything wrong in what they are doing, they have become absolutely corrupt.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation

Yes they are allowed to rape by their own statues at minimum it is sexual assault to put your hands on someone else' body. Forcibly inserting anything into a person's vaginal area (even shallowly) is rape. They do have back rooms, and they have strip searched people.

As far as us throwing our rights away--I am not the one defending a TSA agent who at minimum sexually assaulted a woman. We know that because the pat down was not disputed at all and a TSA pat down by definition includes sexual assault.

Re: Re: Evidence of Defamation

If defamation has occurred it was not done by Ms. Alkon's likely truthful description of the events surrounding that day. I am willing to believe Ms. Alkon because of the testimonies of hundeds of people at the hands of the TSA.

Right. Are you also willing to believe every man accused of rape is also guilty because of the testimonials of THOUSANDS of women who have been raped by men? Thousands of women have been raped by men. Therefore all men accused of rape are guilty.

I can't find hundreds of rape accusations against TSA agents. But hey, this TSA agent MUST be a rapist because you don't like the TSA and you have heard bad things about other TSA agents. So ALL TSA agents must be guilty of whatever unproven accusations are hurled at them.

[Sarcasm for effect to follow, don't prove yourself to be an idiot and believe what follows to be my opinion]

Serves the bitch right for taking a government job instead of getting on welfare. Right? We will teach those TSA bastards! Let's defame the citizens that are employed by the TSA! Hell yeah! It doesn't matter what that sorry ass woman's rights are! We gotta take a stand! Since you didn't quit your job, you're a rapist! TAKE THAT!!

By taking away the rights of TSA workers we are standing up for the rights of our citizens!!!!

Oh shit. Those TSA workers are citizens...crap. We just took away our own rights too. Goddammit.

Re: Evidence of Defamation

This is for taoareyou: Whoever you are, you can't be serious. BIAS against the TSA?!? EVERY TSA agent, without exception, across the country, is committing rape every day! They are a CRIMINAL organization. You DO NOT get that job unless you are a PSYCHOPATH, proven by the results of PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS conducted during the hiring process. Their "job" entails pulling elderly men out of wheelchairs and removing their adult diapers and molesting young children in front of their parents. There is no defense of this crime against humanity. There was no defamation, it is simply the truth! Believe me, I'm not a fan of Ms. Alkon, but I defend her 100 percent here! The TSA has no constitutional right to exist. The elements of the US Government who created the TSA are in fact the real terrorists responsible for 9/11. They are violating both natural law and free will.

Re: Evidence of Defamation

It's entirely possible that the whole incident is made up, but as you said, that's a perfectly normal side effect of having an agency that no one likes. I think it's sad that this is the only option that people have to fight the TSA. Don't like it? Don't have a TSA because effects like this are systematic and it's only going to get worse. Don't want to be publicly ridiculed? Don't do stupid stuff like arrest someone for blowing bubbles. Working for the TSA, and especially performing enhanced pat-downs counts as stupid stuff. The agent might win the lawsuit but a smarter strategy would be to stop the source of the problem. In fact if she wins it will likely increase the spotlight on her and incite more ridicule and hatred.

There is no double standard here. The TSA has publicly stated its attitude regarding its authority to search passengers, to touch, fondle, squeeze even the most private areas of passengers bodies with the palms of their hands; even to the extent of strip searches; it has publicly stated it will tolerate no refusal, and has arrested and fined passengers who have done so.

The real problem here is not defamation. The problem is that the TSA boasts of its authority to act in open defiance of the constitution and common decency, instructs its employees to violate laws against sexual assault. Ms Alkon has not defamed anyone. The TSA has defamed itself, and all those who wear its uniform.

Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

TSA worker works for the TSA.
TSA worker accused of rape.
TSA worker must be guilty because other TSA agents have been abusive.

File sharer uses bittorrent.
File sharer is accused of infringement.
Since other torrents have infringing content, ALL Torrents have infringing content and therefore, since you used a torrent, you must be infringing.

In fact, we say you are infringing and will contact your place of work and let them know you have been illegally downloading copyrighted materials. We will publish your name on our website. We will spread the word so all potential employers in the future will know you are guilty of infringement.

You can do nothing. We do not have to prove our claims. You used a torrent, you are assumed guilty. Tough luck. You should have known better than to use a torrent.

Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

You left out some parts.

TSA worker works for the TSA.
ADD: TSA has a policy of Sexually Assaulting passengers.
ADD: TSA worker follows policy and assaults passenger.
ADD: TSA workers actions recorded on video tape.
TSA worker accused of rape.
ADD: TSA worker admits to sexual assault and following TSA policy.
Change: TSA worker must be guilty because she admits to the act, it is recorded on video, and victim/witness is credible, and actions are in accordance with TSA policy.
New sentance: Other TSA agents have been abusive.
New sentance: The government can accuse you without proof of infringement. You cannot accuse the government of anything even if you have proof from their own mouths.

Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

TSA has a policy of Sexually Assaulting passengers.

Citation needed. I have not seen any TSA policy authorizing sexual assault. In my opinion this is an illegal search, and also one you can refuse to consent to. Nobody has presented evidence that anyone has ever been held down and searched against their will or arrested for not consenting to being searched.

Your claim that sexually assaulting people is policy is simply an outright falsehood. It's an attempt to characterize a a search as a sexual act. These TSA agents, despite what you want to believe, are not doing this for sexual reasons. And they are only touching those who consent to the search.

It harms the fight for civil rights to try and sensationalize the searches as sexual assaults. It detracts from the truth, that they are illegal searches by focusing on a lie.

In prisons, there are much more intrusive searches. Those are not sexual assault either. Nobody characterizes them as such. Body cavity searches are not sexual assaults either. The TSA searches are not sexual assaults. They are illegal searches. Focus on the truth. Trying to make it into something it's not just for the emotional pull will fail in the end, and the position against the searches will be weaker for it.

Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

Prisoners have relinquished most of their civil rights including the search and seizure. There has to have been at minimum probable cause for a body cavity search on a citizen. Ms. Alkon is neither a prisoner nor was there probable cause for a body cavity search. Keep this on topic.

As far as consent goes...
Tell you what next time you go to the airport you go ahead and don't consent to the search and see what happens next--my bet is that you will be at minimum kept from flying likely will be arrested on a BS charge like disorderly conduct.

If person has non consensual contact with a person's sexual organs, even if they do not have sexual intent in the contact, they can still be charged with sexual assault. That is the truth.

Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

"Your claim that sexually assaulting people is policy is simply an outright falsehood. It's an attempt to characterize a a search as a sexual act. These TSA agents, despite what you want to believe, are not doing this for sexual reasons. And they are only touching those who consent to the search."

Actually, it is possible to sexually assault someone without doing so for sexual reasons. As for consenting to the search, that claim is absurd. Those people have consented to flying on an aircraft. The government has decided that consenting to flying on a commercial aircraft is equivalent to consenting to a search. So no, those people have not actually consented to such a search.

Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

Because the victim's assailant has not refuted the claims, tao, there can be no defamation or slander. For those to be possible, what was said must be proven false. Which it has not. It has not even been contested, merely the terminology used to describe it. Therefore, the victim is not wrong for expressing herself through the only avenue open to her, that of the online world.

The needs of the many—the common people of this country—to have their privacy and civil rights respected above all else—outweigh the needs of the few—the government organizations who seek to strip them from us for their own gain. Or the one—the corrupt government that allows them to do this. When injustice has been done, the only logical course of action is to oppose it, in whatever form it is possible to do so.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

I read about a Clarksville woman was arrested after becoming belligerent and statements that if you choose to stop the process you would be questioned before being allowed to leave.

Could you give me a specific link where a person was arrested specifically for not agreeing to be searched? Not an arrest where they become belligerent and have to be removed. One where they were charged with not submitting to the search.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

I read about a Clarksville woman was arrested after becoming belligerent and statements that if you choose to stop the process you would be questioned before being allowed to leave.

"Police claimed that Abbott was taken to jail because she refused to calm down, yelling and swearing at officials.

She "told me in a very stern voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray," airport security officer Sabrina Birge told police. "

What country do we live in where someone can be arrested for yelling or using a "very stern voice"? Are you defending this?

"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest."

Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

"You can do nothing. We do not have to prove our claims. You used a torrent, you are assumed guilty. Tough luck. You should have known better than to use a torrent."

Actually there is something that I can do. I can prove that what you said was wrong. I can prove that you have no evidence whatsoever that corroborates the facts that you allege.

A more accurate comparison would be: You commit copyright infringement. Hundreds of people see you and you admit to having committed copyright infringement. The RIAA issues a press release calling you a "thief" but never sues because they don't believe they would recover enough to make up for the cost of trial. Are we suing the RIAA for inaccurate use of legal terminology?

Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here

"Actually there is something that I can do. I can prove that what you said was wrong. I can prove that you have no evidence whatsoever that corroborates the facts that you allege."

Really? I'm not going to take you to court. I am just going to accuse you of infringement. Where are you going to prove me wrong? On your blog? are you going to call the thousands of people (and all the others in the future that read my blog) and show them the proof?

You wouldn't possibly consider taking me to court would you? You would not ask that I take down my slander would you? After all, I have freedom of speech and can say you committed a crime and you should have no recourse.

Good luck with that. It won't matter a bit if you are innocent and you can prove it if I don't take you to court and you aren't allowed to sue me for defamation.

Citation needed. I have not seen any TSA policy authorizing sexual assault. In my opinion this is an illegal search, and also one you can refuse to consent to. Nobody has presented evidence that anyone has ever been held down and searched against their will or arrested for not consenting to being searched.

>>> The policy on pat-downs is well known and has been experienced by anyone who has opted out.

The TSA has begun using an "enhanced" pat-down procedure for those who would rather not subject themselves to a full-body scan.

"To call it a pat-down is a euphemism," said a spokesman for the ACLU in Massachusetts. Previously, TSA screeners were required to use the back of their hands when searching sensitive regions. The enhanced pat-down rules allow them to use their palms and fingers to feel, twist, squeeze, and prod passengers.

Your claim that sexually assaulting people is policy is simply an outright falsehood.

>>> No, it's an outright truth which people like yourself have difficulty facing.

It's an attempt to characterize a a search as a sexual act.

>>>Sexual assault is...
A broad term that encompasses any forcible sexual activity that occurs without the victim's consent.
A range of behaviors that include, but are not limited to, unwanted kissing and fondling, forcible vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse, forcible vaginal, oral or anal penetration with an object or a finger.

These TSA agents, despite what you want to believe, are not doing this for sexual reasons.

>>> Sexual assault is:
A way for the perpetrator to exert power and control, not about "out of control" sexual desire.

And they are only touching those who consent to the search.

>>> They are touching those who they chose. Consent under duress is no consent at all.

It harms the fight for civil rights to try and sensationalize the searches as sexual assaults.

>>> It harms the fight for civil rights to ignore sexual asault under color of law and pretend it really isn't sexual asault.

It detracts from the truth, that they are illegal searches by focusing on a lie.

>>> Are you smoking something?

In prisons, there are much more intrusive searches. Those are not sexual assault either.

>>> A strip search in prison is less intrusive - when done properly there is no contact.

Nobody characterizes them as such.

>>> By nobody do you mean the FBI? See their color of law abuse page.

Body cavity searches are not sexual assaults either.

>>> If they are done without consent and with no probable cause they surely are.

The TSA searches are not sexual assaults.

>>> If they touch you in the private areas without your consent they sure are. Consent given under duress is not consent at all.

They are illegal searches.

A stopped clock is right 2x a day.

Focus on the truth.

>>> The truth is something you seem unwilling to face.

Trying to make it into something it's not just for the emotional pull will fail in the end, and the position against the searches will be weaker for it.

>>> Trying to pretend that sexual assault isn't happening is delusional. The position against unreasonable searches will not get any stronger if we tolerate these most unreasonable of all "searches".

Re:

Searches are not sexual assaults. Otherwise every citizen placed in prison could file sexual assault charges. Just because you got touched, does not mean it was sexual in intent.

If I go to the airport, and they tell me, I must be searched in order to fly, I turn away and leave. There is no threat of physical harm or arrest. There is no duress. Sure, I want to fly and I want not to be searched. But the fact is that is currently not an option.

If I say, fine you can search me. I have consented. The TSA agent is not doing this because they are a sexual predator hiding behind regulations. It's because that is what they have been trained to do in their search for weapons. This is not sexual assault. It is an illegal search, but not an assault.

For example, a body cavity search is drastically more invasive than the TSA searches.

However they are NOT deemed sexual assault. They are not performed to give pleasure for being in a position of power or for sexual gratification. They are to find illegal substances and weapons.

The TSA searches are invasive and a violation of our 4th amendment rights, but they are not sexual assault.

If the TSA agent forced her fingers into the woman's vagina then the woman should have called the police. It is not the policy of the TSA to sexually assault people no matter how many times you chant otherwise.

The bottom line is the woman agreed to be searched. She allowed the search to continue when she could have stopped it. She declared she was raped but took no legal action, nor attempted to file charges, call the police, etc.

You rally around a false sexual assault charge. Seriously. How many patdowns have happened in the US now? How many sexual assault charges have been filed? How many sexual assault charges have been prosecuted?

Why don't you just make up some other bogus charges? Battery? Attempted murder? Kidnapping? Extortion? Why stop at rape? If the blogger can make accusations without worry that she has to back them up in court, might as well make a whole bunch of them.

Re: Re:

"Searches are not sexual assaults. Otherwise every citizen placed in prison could file sexual assault charges. Just because you got touched, does not mean it was sexual in intent."

One problem you have here--to be placed in prison or to even be put in jail and thus searched The officers must at minimum have probable cause, and usually you have to be charged with a crime to be put in jail or for prison convicted of a crime.

"If I go to the airport, and they tell me, I must be searched in order to fly, I turn away and leave. There is no threat of physical harm or arrest. There is no duress. Sure, I want to fly and I want not to be searched. But the fact is that is currently not an option."

You go ahead and test that theory of yours. Try to turn away and leave--people have tried this, many of them have been arrested and charged.

As far as duress and harm is concerned, you may have hundereds of $$ to blow on an airline ticket that you are unable to use and then even more on alternative transportation but many people don't so there is "harm" threatened at minimum financially.

"The TSA searches are invasive and a violation of our 4th amendment rights, but they are not sexual assault."

Except that what occurs meets every definition of sexual assault.

"Why don't you just make up some other bogus charges? Battery? Attempted murder? Kidnapping? Extortion? Why stop at rape? If the blogger can make accusations without worry that she has to back them up in court, might as well make a whole bunch of them."

Because none of that happened. What happened was a sexual assault under color of law.

You can chant it is not sexual assault all you want, but that does not change what happened. It was both an illegal search and sexual assault all wrapped up into one happy tamale.

Repeating water is not wet again and again does not change the properties of liquid H2O. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats like a duck it is not likely it is a possum.

Really?

Touching someone's vagina during a routine security inspection is no more rape then a gynecologist examining a vagina. By flying you are agreeing to the security inspections the same as visiting a doctor.

Flying on a plane is a privilege. You all think it's your inalienable right (like big screen TV's and mochas). The fact is, I fly often and I'm tired of people who complain that security is 'far too tight'. I like to think that I'm a little bit safer because of physical inspections, scatter ray devices, passport/driver license examinations, and the like. I think the FAA agrees and ultimately congress as they have passed no bills to ban these items.

I take it most of you would prefer to fly on an airline that has no security. So be it. I wish they had that airline for you so I wouldn't have to listen to you whine any longer. I would imagine that potential terrorists would also like to fly that same airline as well. Have fun with that.

Unfortunately planes are expensive and, apparently, so are the people that fly on them when they're dead. Airlines think its better to be safe then to dole out big checks for more equipment and burial costs.

This woman is obviously unstable. Whether or not a finger brushed her labia or not, the fact that this woman's life fell apart at the mere 'grazing' of a finger on her 'private parts' tells me that she is an emotional roller coaster. So hold her up as a blazing trophy for your discontent, I on the other hand see her for what she is (and what most of you are), spoiled, whiny, selfish individuals who care more for your comfort than for the lives and families of those who sit next to you on a plane. Welcome to the great nation we call America! Land of the free, home of the bra... selfish.

Re: Really?

I like to think that I'm a little bit safer because of physical inspections, scatter ray devices, passport/driver license examinations, and the like. I think the FAA agrees and ultimately congress as they have passed no bills to ban these items.

And you trust these people? Have you read about "security theater"? It's working on you!

I take it most of you would prefer to fly on an airline that has no security.

That is a false dichotomy and a strawman at the same time. Two fallacies for the price of one! ;-)

Airlines think its better to be safe then to dole out big checks for more equipment and burial costs.

Airlines don't have a choice in the matter (AFAIK). If they were providing their own security, things might look very different, because they'd have an incentive to provide the level of security their customers want. TSA has no such incentive.

This woman is obviously unstable.

And I thought making a mental health diagnosis from a video was impressive. You can do it just from a news report!

I on the other hand see her for what she is (and what most of you are), spoiled, whiny, selfish individuals who care more for your comfort than for the lives and families of those who sit next to you on a plane.

If you think this is about "comfort", you have missed it.

Welcome to the great nation we call America! Land of the free, home of the bra... selfish.

Interesting that the person defending the government's intrusive searches and criticizing a citizen for sticking up for herself when she believes her rights have been violated is the one trumpeting about the free and the brave.

Re: Really?

"Touching someone's vagina during a routine security inspection is no more rape then a gynecologist examining a vagina."

>>> What nonsense! The doctor has your consent, the TSA does not. Consent given under duress is not consent at all.

"By flying you are agreeing to the security inspections the same as visiting a doctor."

>>> Wrong again. Check your airline's contract of carriage, which has the following government required language:
The airline may refuse to carry a passenger "who refuses to permit search of his/her person or property for explosives or a concealed, deadly, or dangerous weapon or article."

>>> Note there is nothing about a security inspection the same as visiting the doctor. If there were, then I would expect a real doctor, licensed to practice in that state, would be doing the exam.

>>> Did it even occur to you that no lawful contract can require you to engage in unlawful activity, i.e. non consensual sexual contact? What is the TSA runnig here? A security checkpoint or a bawdy house?

"Flying on a plane is a privilege."

>>> Maybe where you come from flying on a plane is a privilege, but in the USA, flying on a plane is a right.
49 US Code-Section 40103 (2) "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." And btw, when I buy a ticket on an airplane, I have a right to that service, period.

"I like to think that I'm a little bit safer because of physical inspections, scatter ray devices, passport/driver license examinations, and the like."

>>> Dream on my friend. TSA agents have been caught stealing from passengers, damaging aircraft, taking illegal drugs drugs, losing uniforms, badges, security keys, dealing in child pornography, armed robbery in uniform... the list goes on and on. Feel safer? I don't, especially when you realize there is nothing in the TSA act to prohibit TSA employees from colluding with Terrorists.

"I take it most of you would prefer to fly on an airline that has no security."

>>> Actually, I have flown in the US and other countries before there was this silly security. The food was better, the stewardesses prettier, and everyone dressed and acted better than today. And yes, I felt a lot safer too.

"I wish they had that airline for you so I wouldn't have to listen to you whine any longer. I would imagine that potential terrorists would also like to fly that same airline as well. Have fun with that."

>>> So do I. Since everyone who flies is considered a potential terrorist, the airline you propose would have lots of customers and no real problems. Imagine going to the airport without having to worry about long lines, being robbed, irradiated, molested, denied boarding because some enemy didn't like your politics and put you on the no fly list. Sounds good to me. I remember flying like that many years ago. No problem!

>>> By the way, did it ever occur to you that terrorists might apply for jobs with the TSA? Or that the TSA, being an equal opportunity employer, would hire them? Still feel safe?

"This woman is obviously unstable."

>>> Who are you to judge? You did not experience what she experienced, you were not there, so how would you know? Seems to me she is experiencing the symptoms common to victims of sexual abuse, and her story is the same as other women have related. And btw, the story said "stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants. Between my labia. She really got up there. Four times."
I doubt very much she would be complaining about a finger "brushing" her labia if that was all that happened.

"I on the other hand see her for what she is (and what most of you are), spoiled, whiny, selfish individuals who care more for your comfort than for the lives and families of those who sit next to you on a plane."

>>> What a silly statement. Anything that happens to those who sit next to me happens to me as well. Nobody should be molested as a condition of flying, nobody. Not me, not you, not the person or family flying next to me.

>>> I see you for what you are: a wannabe dictator on a powertrip who enjoys the suffering of others, especially women, and a toady to the TSA.

>>> As for the TSA itself, they are like the flood walls at Fukushima. Unnecessary most of the time, and useless when a real threat comes along. We would be better off without them.

Re: Really?

At the doctor, you know exactly what they are going to do and they will stop at any time if you ask. The TSA refuses to publish its procedures and you will be fined and arrested if you try to stop them in the middle of a search. The doctor is performing a procedure that has proven benefits.

That airline existed 30 years ago, and they had less terrorist incidents then the ones of today.

The scanner manufactures have stated that their machines would not have detected the weapons in many of the recent high profile incidents including 9/11. Security auditors are able to routinely sneak weapons onto planes in something like 75% of cases.

It exists because of the political liability of doing nothing. It works because people are very bad at assessing risk. They will gladly spend billions of dollars to protect themselves against a very specific and scary scenario(plane hijackings), however unlikely, while caring little about unglamorous yet far more likely scenarios (car accidents).

Why do you consider flying a privilege, assuming you can afford it? Because if it is, then I'm wondering what couldn't be considered a privilege. It seems like most aspects of what people associate with living could be considered a privilege. You could easily reach a point that by simply existing in this county you have consented to give up all the rights you were supposedly guaranteed based simply on executive branch policy not enshrined in law.

hmmm

TSA Agent basically admitted wrongdoing

The TSA agent willingly and deliberately sexually assaulted the victim. If TSA agents do not want to be accused of rape, they can stop performing procedures that involve invasive genital examination, or they can quit their jobs.

Nothing forced the TSA agent to do what she did. Note there is no mention of the TSA agent saying "this didn't happen that way," merely "what happened isn't rape, and you can't call it rape," effectively admitting to the overzealous and unnecessary examination of the victim's body.

Every last one of these TSA thugs should be locked up for participating in criminal abuse, knowingly depriving citizens of their basic rights, and engaging in the expensive lie that is airport security.

I don't know about all the legalize & conjecture. What I am absolutley sure of is that if myself or anyone I love is raped by a known assaliant, I would make it my full time job to ruin their life. I think it is utterley rediculous for anyone to say that it's wrong to name the adult assaliant. Scream it from the roof tops! The Congressional whores have'nt managed to erase the second amendment yet. Use it!

Homeland Terrorist??

Better be careful. According to your logic you could now be charged with slander and sued for defamation. You have accused someone with slander and defamation before those charges were proven in court.

Gov wants flying closed

This is the government's way of saying that flying has become too much of a threat to D.C. and they want the public to stop flying.

Seriously, haven't people considered an honest attempt at a boycott against flying? Wouldn't that hurt the economy and make it clear the terrorists won?

I have to believe the public generally feels safer and supports this. Most fly infrequently and then likely don't go through the machines or go through them without thinking twice about it (about any danger or privacy issue).

Remember, the gov says it is safe.

Remember, people get naked in front of the doctor and various others. Not all doctors would be "professionals", but perhaps the public does generally assume the TSA workers are professionals and in the big scheme of things nothing happened.

Write your congressman or senator

At this point, I think it's time that good people start writing their representatives calling for the immediate disbanding of the TSA. Lets have airplane security put in the hands of the airplane owners--and have them pay for any damages incurred by a lack of security.
The TSA, above all other agencies, has proven to be corrupt and unfitting of the american way of life. I no longer fly because I refuse to be subject to such tyranny.
If you don't like being searched and invaded every time you need to get somewhere in a hurry--then please share this idea, and write your representative.
Sure, thousands of people will be losing their jobs--but millions more will be able to fly in safety and for lower air-fare taxes.

Freedom of the Road, and How to Use It.

I have a rather odd perspective on "freedom of the roads." I don't drive, you see. When I want to go somewhere by automobile, I hire a taxicab. The basic fact from my point of view is that taxicabs are legally defined as public accommodations, and if a driver can be shown to have discriminated, he can lose his taxicab license. From my standpoint, road transportation is a right. In big cities, the taxicab is constructed with a compartment for the driver, and a compartment for the passenger. Security issues do not translate into requiring the passenger's identification, and payment in cash is acceptable. The driver is free to install a drop-safe if he feels he needs one.

I once hired a taxicab to take me three hundred miles. I was moving at the time, and I had enough complications with the mover's timetables and deadlines, without wanting to add those of an airline. So I called up a taxicab company; they put me in contact with one of their drivers; we negotiated a fare; and he gave me his cellphone number. This was back in about 1995, when not everyone had cellphones, of course. At any rate, on moving day, I called the driver from time to time, to keep him posted on how fast the movers were loading my goods. He kept on taking regular fares until the last minute, and then arrived a few minutes after the movers had left. And away we went! On a door-to-door basis, it was just about as fast as the airlines (much faster now, of course), and rather more flexible. The (cash) price was in the same general ballpark as airfare, bearing in mind that I was not eligible for the various excursion discounts.

That said, there are surprisingly few limits on what one can do with cleverly designed road transport.

Suppose someone takes old Greyhound buses, and refits them as sleeper coaches, with say, four or five roomettes per bus, and with all feasible comforts. Operating at the commercial vehicle speed limit of 65 mph (higher in certain western states), the buses could cover about 1500 miles a day. The company would enter into arrangements with local taxicab and limousine companies to sell the service, and to pick up passengers and deliver them to suitable transfer points, such as truck stops on the interstate highways, and to deliver incoming passengers to their ultimate destinations. With only four or five passengers per sleeper coach, and taxicab/limousine for the first and last fifty or hundred miles, it ought to be feasible to set up direct routes, eg. Bay Area to Dallas--Fort Worth. That works out to something over 1700 miles, road distance, so a passenger would leave the Bay Area, Sunday night, and be available for business in Dallas-- Fort Worth, fully rested on Tuesday morning. That might not be quite as fast as the airlines, but it is close enough to be a possible alternative, particularly bearing in mind that the passenger could work effectively at the desk in his roomette. When you take account of the fact that people have to sleep somewhere, it is only at the very longest distances that the airlines are without potential competition.

TSA

The TSA has become a threat to all Americans who fly passenger airlines. The agents of this government agency have been given extraordinary authority to insult, threaten, and actually physically violate the bodies of all passengers, men, women, and children. And the aged. They especially seem to enjoy humiliating women and children.
The TSA is a rogue agency that is almost identical to the Brown Shirts of Germany. In fact, they use many of the same physical attacks: forceful throwing to the ground elderly wheel chair bound persons. And since the man in question was less than 90 years old and only crippled, the TSA thought to be on the safe side to call for reinforcements, which they did. And then at least four big, brawny, healthy, armed and trained bullies attacted the dangerous elderly wheelchair bound man.
What in the world is wrong with this country?
A bully is a bully regardless of weather or not he wears a badge and uniform and packs a Glock automatic.
I don't know the TSA female who violated the person of the passenger, but I do know what the meaning of is, is. Which is that the ignorant would-be gauleiter should be fired immediately. But that won't happen because the govt is full of crave poodles who lap filth from the street in order to keep their jobs.
Henri

TSA

I was coming back to the US after having part of my breast removed and irradiated due to the breast cancer (with no insurance I couldn't afford having it done in the US). The TSA agent in the NY Kennedy airport grabbed and squeezed my partially removed and partially radiation-burned breast without any warning. When I jumped back and screamed I was told to "warn them in advance". How would you expect such an assault on your own free body "in advance"?

Ya but the question is....

Magee is a rapist.

Magee is a rapist and sexual preditor for what she did and should be thrown in jail. Now, Magee, you going to come after me too? Bring it on!

We need to put the TSA in it's place - which is in the bin. They deserve no respect and should be disbanded. In the future people should be ashamed to admit they ever worked for such a scumbag governmental agency.

Seriously.

Anyone notice it is the TSA Agent as a separate individual and not the TSA themselves that are suing? I think that says something - namely that the TSA knows what they do is a violation of our rights.

Secondly, has anyone ever really stepped back and looked at some of this a bit more logically. For instance, how much explosive to really take down a plane. Seriously folks, it would take a LOT. A small explosive device might blow a small hole in the plane but oxygen masks would deploy and the pilot would bring the plane down to a level where it didn't require pressurization. Planes have been safely landed in these kinds of circumstances before. Smaller and powerful devices hidden on a person are EXTREMELY difficult because the components needed are difficult to properly transport and compbine. At best you get a fizzled failed effort like the shoe bomber - whose powder explosives would not have been detected by the porno-scanners anyway. C4 explosive would need to be transported in a large brick size or in even larger quantity to do enough damage. And C4 consistency is more like semi-hard putty or clay. A light pat down like they used to do back in the day is sufficient to detect this amount of hard clay like material. Seriously - they don't need to poke you in the smeggegy to figure this out - it would be obvious you were "packing" so to speak. They need to focus more on the baggage - both carry on and what goes in the hold and this includes all the unscanned cargo. What we have here folks is really bad case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

As far as Ms. Alkon - thank God someone has the "er" balls to stand up to the TSA and not to bow down to this attempt to intimidate her into silence. The TSA needs to be abolished - not security - just the TSA.
there are other technologies that can be used and have been used both in Europe and even in Florida (iris scanning, etc.) that provide fast reliable security without violating someone's modesty or personal space. However the TSA with former goverment TSA officials lobbying their porno-scanners completely overlooked our rights and selected a technology that is ineffective, dangerous, and a violation of our personal privacy as US citizens.

And lastly for all those bozos who keep saying flying is a priviledge if you don't like it don't fly - get your facts straight. It's NOT a privilege it is a right. Secondly, many of us have no choice as it is required by our jobs.

What happened when I was there

I had the TSA search the other day. Here is how I handled it. First when they told me to go into the scanner, I asked, "Is that a radiation chamber?". They lied and said no and that I had to go into it. I said that I would never voluntarily enter a dangerous radiation chamber, and accused the TSA guy of being either an idiot on radiation or an intentional liar. Well he didn't like either of my statements and had me go over to get searched. I agreed with no comment.

As I was waiting to go to the search direction, I made the comment to the liar TSA guy, "your the one that will get the radiation poisoning as you work next to the machine all day".

Then seeing that they had a thinker on their hands, I got another TSA agent for my search. This guy was not quite so stupid as the liar. He looked me right in the eye and basically said, "lets get this over with". It looked to me like the TSA guys HATE doing the searches.

He read his script to me. I said, "you can say whatever you want if it makes you feel better". He then asked me if I wanted to do the search in a private room, and I said, "I'm not the one ashamed of my behavior".

We were standing where a lot of people could hear my comments and the TSA all looked quite ashamed.

He asked if I objected to him doing the search to which I asked loudly, "are you gay? I don't want a gay man or female TSA agent grabbing my crotch". He said he was not gay to which I said that he would be no worse than anyone else.

He then asked if I agreed to the search. I said, "I will never agree with your shameful decisions, but I will do nothing to stop you or resist in any way".

As he did his search he came to my crotch. I had a suit on and the slacks left little to the imagination being thin material. As he grabbed my penis I said loudly to everyone watching, "oh yes everyone you saw that correctly - he just grabbed my penis". He went bright red. He looked like he was contemplating a new job ASAP. He was not having any fun at all.

All I did as verbalize what he was physically doing, as he was doing it. I could tell no one had ever done this to him before.

One of the people putting on their shoes watching me actually dropped his jaw wide open and went bug eyed when he heard my penis comment.

Is it rape when she could have said "no"?

I'm not clear on why the victim of the search, which she categorizes as rape, didn't just say no.

My understanding is that you can refuse the search at anytime, including during the search. Yes, obviously they are not going to let you through the checkpoint without a search, but it is an option.

The question above makes me wonder why a gynecological examination is not a rape, but a TSA search is. They both are conducted under the consent of the subject and both examinations are required to stop immediately at the request of the subject.

The victim obviously felt violated by the incident, but the legal system currently requires the persons involved in any "sexual" encounter to actually revoke consent once given.

Re: Is it rape when she could have said "no"?

Refusing the search at any time is a good way to get a set of bracelets on your wrists. Go directly to jail, do not pass go. Do not board your flight. This has happened more often than not, and to people who were obviously not security threats. That's if you are lucky. If you are not so lucky, you might get beat up. That's happened too.

Why is a gynecological examination not a rape, but a TSA search is? The GYN exam is voluntary, and while unpleasant, is for the benefit of the woman concerned and her health. The TSA "procedure" is punitive (for opting out of the scanner), endured under duress (you won't board your flight if you refuse), and is for no one's benefit but the TSA's. Check any colleges' web site re sex abuse. It will tell you such assaults are about power, and can be same sex. Check out how women react to TSA assault and sexual assault under other circumstances. The body and mind react the same way, with one difference. It's worse when your assailant wears a government uniform can assault you with impunity today, next week, next year, and doesn't see anything wrong in his/her actions. TSA knows it is traumatic to women, but does it anyway.

I don't feel any safer knowing women (and children, and men) are being molested as a condition of flying. Any TSA agent that does this is just as likely, in my mind, to turn a blind eye to other illegal activity. In fact, TSA agents have been caught stealing from passengers, smuggling drugs, dealing in child porn, committing robbery and abduction while in uniform. What makes anyone think they would hesitate about colluding with terrorists if the price was right, or if their bosses ordered it. (The crotch bomber was escorted onto the plane by a US State Dept rep, don't ask me why.)

TSA

Alright, so they are NOT what was intended. How many billions of dollars go into this sluggish, nepotistic, thieving, and jackbooted wanna-be agents each year? According to a Homeland Security Newswire article the 2011 proposed budget was $43.6 BILLION dollars. No terrorist acts caught at the gate for a price tag of $43.6 billion dollars just this year and our personal as well as national dignity is all it costs. http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/airport-screening-statistics.html

Re: Vagina exam

Re: Vagina exam

I don't think you understand. The vagina is a small place. That's why it rips when you have a baby. But I'm sure you're a man who doesn't understand that. The most you could fit is a knife, about the size of a penis, or maybe something else small. But a gun? Must be the smallest thing of the century. She wouldn't be able to walk! It takes enough time as a teenager adjusting to tampons,rather not a full on gun. Just saying. So your claim is not only man-biased and obnoxiously offensive, but really stupid and accepting of what happens to people at airports!

Legal ?

Anyone else in our so called free world had touched a man, woman or child would be placed in prison. Prison is exactly where these people need to be. This is terror at it's finest. What long term mental problems is this creating for the children ? I hope they don't grow up to become killers, rapists or just plain evil thinking that they were molested legally so now they have the right to do the same.

Attorney

Same thing happened to me

This just happened to me yesterday at the Denver Airport, female TSA agent name was Rodriguez there was no first name on her badge that I could see. I even complained to a 'supervisor" and was told "he would be happy to escort me out of the airport" I just wanted to go home, not be stuck in Colorado. You become even more of a victim because you don't want to be kept from your flight.